2008SP - University of Utah

ECONOMICS 5080 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
ALL STUDY QUESTIONS
ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SPRING SEMESTER 2008
Question 8 is 2 in 1996sp, 1 in 1997WI, 1 in 1997sp, 1 in 1997ut, 1 in 1998WI, 1 in 1999SP,
1 in 2002fa, 2 in 2003fa, 4 in 2004fa, 5 in 2005fa, 8 in 2007fa, 8 in 2008fa, 8 in 2009fa,
9 in 2010fa, 9 in 2011fa, and 1 in Answer:
Question 8 Can one say that happiness is the only true wealth?
[1] Kevin: (graded A) Happiness and Wealth: Possible Antonyms? I do not believe that
happiness is the only true wealth. In fact, I believe that happiness may at some times in life
be the farthest thing from it. Wealth, defined as “anything that enhances human life,” does
not seem to come from happiness at all but from struggle, sorrow, hard work, and dedication
to the solution of problems in life.
A look back on some of the greatest inventions of the world, things that “enhance human
life,” would suggest that the inventors or those around them were not happy with their circumstances
and therefore changed those circumstances. Wealth in these cases may even be
the mind of the inventor and not the invention itself, or even possibly both.
I suppose then the argument would be whether those inventions were really enhancing
life at all but I think that may be grounds for an entirely different argument.
Message [1] referenced by [2], [7], [9], and [2011fa:778]. Next Message by Kevin is [136].
[2] Dyoung: Happiness and Wealth. I would agree that happiness is the only true wealth.
But it is not for sale. Happiness is something you earn from life’s achievements which can
come in a temporal form like money, cars, houses, jewelry, etc. Happiness is more of an
emotional state of life. It is not something you can just go out and buy. Happiness is caused
by external forces, where bliss is happiness in its true state without any reason for it to exist
other than the moment being perfect. It can occur in any situation and at any time if you are
willing to acknowledge it for what it is. Wealth has been defined as anything that enhances
human life, which happiness needs to be included in this because it is the pay-off of that
enhancement which you have received. Everyone would perceive happiness and wealth
very differently. Something that may make me happy, may not make someone else equally
as happy. So when it comes down to if happiness is the “only” true wealth, it does not pay
your bills. So the real question is “what does being wealthy mean to the individual?”
Hans: Your answer came 3 hours after Kevin’s [1], but you did not refer to Kevin’s answer, but started from scratch,
with a completely different angle than Kevin’s. This is against the rules of this class. We are aiming for a discussion
in which the contributions build on each other, and not a cacophony of unrelated submissions.
Also you have some awkward sentences. “Happiness is more of an emotional state of life” is not appropriate
for written English. I expect a more polished formulation.
Message [2] referenced by [5]. Next Message by Dyoung is [28].
1

2 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
[5] Hans: Why does nobody notice that logarithms can’t be yellow? The answer to
this question has two parts, I will number them (1) and (2):
(1) First of all, you cannot say anything intelligent about this question if you don’t notice
that “happiness is the only kind of wealth” is a nonsensical statement. It is like saying
“laughter is the only kind of joke.” Wealth is an input into the process of living, while
happiness is an output from the process of living. I elaborated on this in [1999SP:12], which
I recommend as reading. (In other words, if others contribute to this same question, I expect
them to have read it.)
(2) The above is only the first part of the answer, so-to-say the preliminary. The more
interesting part comes now: why is it not obvious to everybody that this is a nonsensical
statement? Now we go from logic to sociology.
The submitted answers seemed always striking to me because people are so quick to
denigrate wealth. I am a Marxist. I think we are living in a society in which there is a lot
of blatant exploitation, but this exploitation is hidden from those being exploited. From this
starting point it is easy to come to the conclusion that this denigration of wealth is part of
the defence mechanism which allows everybody not to see their exploitation. If wealth is
irrelevant, if it is more important to have a good attitude than to have material resources as I
just happened to read in [2005fa:120], then it is easier to live with the fact that all the wealth
we are producing is stolen or misappropriated.
But Dyoung’s answer [2] adds a different dimension to it. When Dyoung says happiness
is not for sale, and it does not pay your bills – but wealth does – he seems to identify wealth
with things that can be bought and sold. But purchases and sales are not wealth itself but
they are the social form which wealth takes in our society. Therefore his suspicion about
wealth is also a critique of the existing social relations.
Can you be convinced that you are not critical of wealth itself but of the form wealth
takes in our society? Let’s imagine components of wealth which cannot be bought or sold.
By taking classes at the University of Utah you are enriching your lives – not only because
you may get a better paying job afterwards but also because you know more about the world
and about yourself. And the nice thing about this kind of wealth is: nobody can take it away
from you.
This takes me to another aspect in Dyoung’s answer, and in many answers before him.
Wealth is seen as a reward for sacrifice. Again I think this is an implicit critique of our social
relations, for two reasons – this time I call them (a) and (b):
(a) Why should production, arguably the noblest activity humans can pursue, be considered
a sacrifice? My Marxist knee-jerk answer here is: because in our society, production is
bound up with exploitation. The disgusting part of our work lives is not the production part
but the exploitation part.
(b) Why should the incredible wealth in this society only be made available so some and
not shared by everybody? If you answer: it is necessary as an incentive to produce more,
then my Marxist knee-jerk answer is: We don’t need more production. More production as

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 3
we know it from capitalism causes climate change and ruins the living conditions for humans
on the planet.
Message [5] referenced by [7], [8], [13], [14], [15], and [2008fa:18]. Next Message by Hans is [8].
[7] Lev: Happiness and Wealth. Well, one could certainly say it but they wouldn’t
necessarily be correct. ;-)
Kevin suggested in [1] that the quest for wealth “does not seem to come from happiness
at all but from struggle, sorrow, hard work, and dedication to the solution of problems in
life”. It would seem however this to have the question the wrong way around. The question
does not ask whether wealth provides happiness, but whether happiness is the only true
wealth; the word order provides a question of significantly different quality. Hans [5] has
indicated whether the question is pragmatically commensurable in the first place, but again I
would point out that the question did not ask whether “happiness is the only kind of wealth”
but rather it is the only true wealth; a statement itself which does fall into the “No True
Scotsman” sort of fallacy).
Nevertheless, many would intuitively agree with the proposition as the “quest for happiness”
has been a dominant theme in intellectual thought and practical application for many
years. In Plato’s “Crito”, the contemplative philosopher Socrates argues that the most important
aim in a person’s life is to achieve happiness through virtuous knowledge of the good,
achieved through self-development, and the cultivation of friendships of good people. It is
not life, he argues, but a good life that is to chiefly valued (Crito, 48b). Aristotle, following
a similar line of reasoning in the “Nichomachean Ethics”, developed a system of “virtue
ethics”, arguing that the function of the human soul was to have a true life built on balanced
consideration and action.
It may seem surprising then that given the emphasis of the ancient Hellenes to good moral
choices being the path to happiness, that some contemporary biopsychologists (e.g., Prof.
Kent Berridge, University of Michgan, Stefan Klein in The Science of Happiness (2006))
argue that happiness is largely determined by neurochemical states, that is, the relative presence
of natural opiates like dopamine in the brain. On a related approach some [1] have
claimed that 50% of happiness is from genetic basis, and only 10-15% from socio-economic
origins, although the particular study does suffer from selection bias.
Countering this claim from the discipline mainstream economics and its utilitarian calculations.
Some significant attempts have been made to differentiate between wealth as
measured by GDP and life quality overall. These are interesting as they show exactly how
far the definition of wealth in the political and economic system (as defined by exchange values)
is from representing satisfaction (as defined as use values). In 2005, “The Economist”
produced such a study. As one would obviously expect there was an positive correlation between
GDP per capita and quality of life. However there were significant disparities between
the two depending on how the GDP was used.
The nations were the Quality of Life was significantly higher (10 ranks or more) than
their GDP per capita in the larger economies included places like Sweden (+14), Italy (+15),
Spain (+14) and New Zealand (+10). Places where the QoL index was significantly lower
than their GDP per capita included the United States (-11), the United Kingdom (-16), Saudi

4 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Arabia (-23), and almost at the bottom of the list (despite being a mid-range economy according
to GDP per capita), was Russia (-50). The best places to live, overall, were Ireland,
Switzerland, Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden, Australia, Iceland, Italy, Denmark and Spain,
Singapore and Finland.
Combining the various approaches it would seem necessary to differentiate [2] between
“labour”, those unpleasant activites (as Kevin illustrated) necessary to provide the necessities
of life, between “work”, the payment of activity for wages, subject to the various forms
of exploitation, power relations etc and “action”, the free and conscious activity without
restrains, an ideal found in Arendt and especially in Herbert Marcuse (cf., Eros and Civilization).
Making this differentiation, and on the upper level of activity, would allow one to
define “action” as happiness as not the only true wealth, but certaily the one which is the
highest form, albeit only achievable under certain conditions.
1] Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, Schkade in “Pursuing Happiness: The Architecture of Sustainable
Change”, Review of General Psychology 2005, Vol. 9, No. 2, 111-131
2] As Hannah Arendt did in her studies on the human condition and Engels made explicit
in his speech at Marx’s graveside.
Message [7] referenced by [15]. Next Message by Lev is [14].
[9] Hans: Wealth without Misery? Kevin [1] does not try to answer the nonsensical
question whether happiness is wealth, but switches to the more interesting question whether
happiness is conducive to the production of wealth. His answer is “no,” and Marx would
agree. Marx says in 648:2/oo: “Where nature is too lavish, she ‘keeps [humankind] in hand,
like a child in leading-strings’.”
Prior to capitalism, the highest level of technology was achieved by independent artisans
and peasants producing for the market (petty commodity production). But these proud and
independent producers would never have agreed to the discipline of large-scale direct cooperation.
One might say they were too happy in their independence, they would never
have dreamt of giving it up voluntarily. Only when they lost their independence and became
wage laborers of the same capitalist, could they be forced to directly co-operate. Instead of
a human-based production process, capital introduced a modern science-based production
process, a revolution which necessarily had to go against the will of the laborers themselves.
The capitalists did this only in order to be able to exploit the workers better, but the historical
gift which they unwittingly made is the enormous jump of productivity when individual
production was replaced by massively co-operative production.
What I just wrote is spelled out in various places in Capital, see e.g. 453:1, 775:1/o.
Again we see that it was not happiness but the coercion associated with capitalist exploitation
that lead to more wealth. Marx recognizes this as the historical mission of capitalism.
He thinks capitalism is a phase humankind had to go through in order to develop labor
productivity, but it has long outlived its usefulness and must be replaced now by a more
participatory economic system.
Next Message by Hans is [15].
[13] CousinIt: Occupational Psychosis. In [5], Hans asks the interesting question “why
is it not obvious to everybody” that the question about happiness being the only true wealth

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 5
is about a “nonsensical statement.” I agree that this is the more important question. As Hans
points out, the cultural tactic or strategy (conscious or otherwise) underlying notions that we
can be happy even when denied some kind of equity of collective wealth at the level of the
individual amounts to what Veblen called a “trained incapacity” (this is referred to in Keneth
Burke’s Permanence and Change). That is, we are acculturated to accept exploitation as a
necessary condition of life, a veritable “law of nature,” and this, given that we are even able to
recognize exploitation when we see it, at all! We aren’t capable of seeing or evaluating even
our own material relations. We are also acculturated to not even notice or acknowledge the
exploitation inherent in the capitalist system, or to downplay the negative effects that such
exploitation has on the lives of individuals, including our own lives in this world. There
is a strong connection to this conditioned ignorance of exploitation and a notion that one’s
rewards for labors in this life will be gained in some life yet to come or by means other
than material means. These are, in turn, connected to notions that poor people who do not
enjoy the wealth that others do in capitalist society are somehow nonetheless capable of a
“greater happiness” in their poverty; a “happiness” that, interestingly enough in the folklore
of our time even emerges as a characteristic property of poverty in itself! Yet, by the same
token, in this country, if one were able to objectively observe common behavior without
such a debilitating bias that makes everything ‘appear’ OK, one might come away with the
impression that we, the American citizenry, think that the proper response to any crisis,
personal or collective, is to immediately go shopping, as President Bush suggested we do
immediately after September 11, 2001. To me, in my own ‘sick’ ‘pinko-commie’ mind,
this conditioned ignorance and response to the material conditions of our lives as a whole
is not less than massively absurd and akin to denying that human activity has effects on the
biosphere, such as denying the human factor in ‘global warming.’ Some of us probably even
think that slavery is a thing of the past that we have effectively eradicated.
In [4], Litsyemir suggests, in reference to [3] that we have the same (or similar) conditions
of selective blindness here (in the U.S.? we should for clarity’s sake, state exactly what,
where, or how when making such blanket statements) in that there is a systematic indoctrination
that creates a blindness in regard to exploitation. Litsyemir suggests that “capitalism
has become consumption.” In fact, the situation is much much worse than Litsyemir intuits.
Some folks go so far as to suggest that capitalism and democracy are the same thing, if not
necessarily connected. What is ignored in such a conception of democracy as ‘freemarket’
capitalism is that in a truly democratic society the citizens could vote even on what kind of
economic system or currency is to be used in that society. By some accounts, capitalism,
which creates great disparities of wealth amongst its participants giving rise to stratified
socio-economic classes, is completely and diametrically the exact antithesis to democracy.
By this account democracy is a sham amongst a society of participants who do not enjoy
and wield a rough equality of material wealth as individuals. This is not something you will
be able to find anywhere in the popular illiterature. They didn’t teach this to us in school.
In both cases, the situation is one that is not just an inaccuracy of apprehension or efficiency
of indoctrination, but rather an actual illness that amounts to a wasting-away of the
human species potential as a result of a mental / socio-economic / emotional / biological
infirmity that ends up having very real material and biological effects on the body of the
human animal as a whole, if not on the biosphere. Burke (mentioned earlier) has an entire

6 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
chapter (taking from John Dewey, a famous American philosopher of the pragmatist school)
on what he refers to as “occupational psychosis.” Basically, every society has a principal
mode of production which ends up dictating the worldview necessary to promote and perpetuate
that very modal productivity. Worldviews are very very all-encompassing, relatively
rigid, and exclusive. Anything coming from outside of the popular worldview is essentially,
from inside of that worldview, unthinkable.
Following Burke, a person’s or a society’s interests (e.g., one’s “best interests”) must
be differentiated from a person’s or a society’s interest in a topic or along an articulated
continuum of ideas, activities, beliefs, values, etc. (though surely we can see how these
are always everywhere immanently in positive or negative relationship). People will pay
attention to what interests them, which may or may not be what is in their ‘best’ interest.
Burke claims that greatest attention is paid to those things that play to what we are interested
in, all else being pushed to the periphery or the ‘back burner’ on the range of salient issues
and concerns. Clearly, upon reflection and perhaps upon hindsight, we see the difference
between that which we are interested in and that which it is in our “best interest” to think,
say, do, etc. Burke uses the example of the laborer, who is not necessarily interested in
proletariat literature, though such literature might nonetheless have as its subject the best
interests of the worker (37-38). We naturally pay attention to the things that interest us in
the communications of others, in the sense that it is often said that one ‘hears what one wants
to hear,’ often despite the nature of our ‘best interests’ or that which we ‘ought to’ hear.
In a hunting society, because the means of survival is organized around the hunt, all other
ideological elements and practices take on the imaginative characteristics of the hunt as
general cultural template. In terms of human relationships, women are stalked and hunted;
...a tribe which lives by the hunt may be expected to reveal a corresponding
hunt pattern in its marriage rites, where the relation between man and
woman may show a marked similarity to the relationship between huntsman
and quarry. The woman will be ritually seized. Also, the highly problematical
nature of hunting, its continual stressing of the sudden, or unexpected,
might instigate a cultural emphasis upon the new (39).
In a capitalist techno-consumerism, because all things are operationalized and determined
in terms of progress as well as debit or credit, human relationships also reflect the characteristics
of the dominant method of survival (or mode of production). In the current capitalistconsumerist
psychosis, apprehended as it is in a psychoanalytic (that congruent with everyday
systems of patriarchal authoritarianism, reduces emotional and mental life by analysis to
the oedipal) personalities, practices and behaviors are leveled-out and captured by a system
of commodities, exchange, and institutionalization as ‘public mental health.’ Commodified
human relations are bought and sold according to legal and economic enablements and
constraints.
Burke’s contention is that even our own society is subsumed by a psychotic split with the
actual conditions of our own existence. We thus fall prey to a view of the world and our
place in it that ultimately ‘cannot see’ the truth. This ultimately amounts to an illusion or

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 7
hallucination of psychotic proportions. For Burke, societies, like individuals, suffer from
pathological dis-ease.
Reference
Burke, K. (1984). Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Message [13] referenced by [14], [15], and [686]. Next Message by CousinIt is [27].
[14] Lev: Occupational Psychosis. I am interested in CousinIt’s contribution [13] as
it takes a very different angle to that I have been considering in Hans’ [5] statement about
“nonsense”. CousinIt discussion is primarily on the distortion of consciousness due to class
and especially the need to transcend these contextual biases (they are rationally available and
therefore can be transcended). On that point I delight in pointing out that Ricardo famously
said that the interests of the landlord class are opposed to the interests of all other classes.
For my part, I would like to look at the the pragmatics of the “nonsensical question”, “Can
one say that happiness is the only true wealth?” is, in my opinion, more complex than Hans
is giving it credit for. To be sure, if one phrases it as “Wealth is an input into the process of
living, while happiness is an output from the process of living”, yes, then it makes sense to
write it off as being pragmatically nonsense (as per the comment “laughter is the only kind
of joke”). However, such claims of nonsense is dependent on whether happiness is only an
output and wealth is only an input.
As has been previously referenced, the Hellenes considered happiness to be an output
based on intention, that is, happiness is generated from morally good intentions. One can
certainly posit a situation where regardless of the outcome of their actions, a person with
such an intent remains happy because they know that they acted righteously. Also previously
referenced is a fairly hefty study which argues that some 50% is “set-point” (largely
genetically derived), some 40% is intentions and a mere 10% is circumstances (p116). Now I
personally think that the particular study is significantly prone to selection bias, but that does
not change the fact that both genetics and intentions are a component to where happiness is
described as an input to the process of living, rather than an output.
Conversely, it is arguable whether ‘wealth’ is just an input to the processes of living.
Whilst wealth has come to mean an accumulation of economic value, in a more general
sense it means a measure of any resource, to which ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ can be relative markers
of whatever resource is being measured. Now are these resources an input or an output of
the processes of living? It is quite arguable that they are both, as an input derived from both
nature (e.g., richness in strength), social relations (e.g., richness in inherited ownership of
land, capital), and as an output in the manner described by Marx in the transformation from
simple commodity production to capitalist commodity production.
Apropos to my previous post, I would further argue that the happiness/wealth comparison
has much to do with contextual conditions. I seriously doubt, regardless of genetics or
intention, whether happiness is plausible for those who are in a state of perpetual hunger.
Likewise, I cannot imagine a person deriving happiness from labouring in such a such an
economy even in the most non-exploitative social arrangements; in the apocryphal words
of Chief Seattle, it is not existence but survival. It is indeed notable that the landlord and

8 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
capitalist classes threaten the working and renting classes with precisely this sort of rental or
wage regime, which accords with David Ricardo’s twin laws (The Law of Rent, The “Iron
Law” of Wages) and this does raise the point that in some economic states, it is quite possible
for the threat of ‘remorseless labour’ has been surpassed in economic conditions but due to
exploitative social relations it still exists for the exploited.
In summary, genetic and intentional happiness is only possible in economic conditions
where necessities can be satisfied. This possibility of happiness as an input only becomes
a reality depending on the degree of exploitation in social relations. Once this point is
reached however happiness can be both an input (genetics, intentions) and an output (further
accumulation of utilitarian wealth). Happiness and wealth are both inputs and outputs and
their interaction is modified by concrete circumstances.
Message [14] referenced by [15]. Next Message by Lev is [24].
[15] Hans: How to Investigate a Totality. The discussion about this question was never
as profound as this year. CousinIt’s [13] and Lev’s [7] and [14] are extremely rich, much
better than what I could have produced myself. Thank you for your contributions.
Lev [7] finds my explanation in [5] simplistic. About this I’d like to say something. We
are looking at a society. This is a totality, i.e., a system in which everything depends on
everything. Where do you begin when you try to study a totality? You just have to make
some simplifications. Therefore your argument can never have the force of a mathematical
proof. But I think my explanation gives me a framework which enables me to make sense of
a good portion of the answers to this question in the archives. Even better evidence would be
to ask the writers of these answers whether my feedback based on my theory is convincing
to them – but most of these writers are no longer available. This too, of course, is not an
exact criterion. Maybe the best evidence would be whether my intervention based on this
paradigm would enable them to make changes in society for the better. What I am trying to
say is: there are criteria how to evaluate a theory, but they are not exact criteria.
But we are under a time constraint here. Our philosophical discussion about wealth and
happiness should not keep us from reading Capital. Does my interpretation of Marx in the
currently assigned readings, see [12], make sense to you? We should turn our collective
attention to the way how Marx argues that value comes from labor.
Next Message by Hans is [18].
Exam Question 32 is 25 in 2002fa, 28 in 2004fa, 33 in 2007SP, 32 in 2007fa, 32 in
2008fa, 35 in 2011fa, and 32 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 32 Does the use-value of a commodity depend on the person using it?
[229] Scott: Use-value does not depend on the individual. What is a use-value? The
usefulness of a commodity for human life makes it a use-value.
The use-value of a commodity does not depend on the individual but on whether it satisfies
a human need or want. For example a car is going to be a use value for me because it
fulfills one of my human needs, but it’s not going to be a use value for my friend who is in a
wheel chair and cannot drive. The use-value of a thing is therefore not one of the properties
of the thing, but the relationship between these properties and human needs or wants that is
attributed to the thing as if it was a property of the thing.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 9
Hans: I edited your original submission to make your answer more precise.
(a) Wherever you had originally written “commodity” I replaced it by “thing.” Something does not have to be a
commodity (i.e., produced for sale) in order to be a use-value.
(b) Your last sentence was originally: “The use value of a commodity is not a property of a thing, but the
relationship between the thing and human needs and wants.” This is almost a literal quote from the beginning of a
sentence in the Annotations, but the beginning of the sentence alone, without the end, does not make much sense.
I replaced it by the entire sentence from the Annotations (in fact, I edited my own sentence in the Annotations too,
so you see here the version in the next edition of the Annotations).
Next Message by Scott is [325].
[231] Hans: Use-value versus neoclassical utility. My [2004fa:174] is “the” right answer
to this question. Here it is again, for your convenience:
No, it doesn’t. A thing has use-value if its properties are such that they
are useful to humans. If Marx says that every commodity, in order to be
exchangeable, must have use-value, he is thinking that it must be in principle
usable, not that every single person will want to use it. If the question
arises whether something is useful for a specific person, Marx uses the idiom
“use-value for” that person, for instance he says that the commodity
has no use-value for its producer. But without this “for,” use-values are
independent of the individuals using the product.
This is all you have to say in the exam, but let me give you a little background. This
is a designated exam question because it highlights the difference between the classical
concept of use-value and the neoclassical concept of utility. Utility is something subjective;
it is the satisfaction which people derive from using a good. Use-value, by contrast, is
objective; think of it as the physical properties of the good which make it useful for humans,
or the menu of all possible uses of a thing. As I tried to explain in the Annotations in my
comments to the first sentence of 126:1, the usefulness of a thing is a relative concept. It
cannot be located in the thing alone, and also not in humans alone. The concept “use-value”
attributes it to the thing, while the concept “utility” attributes it to the humans.
By the way, despite the automatic message that this is an ungraded exam question, when
answered during the extra credit period, these exam questions will be graded. But the extra
credit period is almost over. It ends at 10:45 today (Sunday), which is 24 hours before
tomorrow’s exam.
Message [231] referenced by [256], [279], and [385]. Next Message by Hans is [256].
Question 34 is 27 in 1995ut, 29 in 2003fa, 31 in 2005fa, 35 in 2007SP, and 34 in 2008fa:
Question 34 Can you think of an example in which the quantity of something affects its
quality, for instance some physical matter two litres of which are qualitatively different than
one litre of it?
[24] Lev: Quantity and Quality – and Crisis. The question of quantitative change effecting
quality is a reasonably well-known matter of philosophical import and initially given
its strong elucidation in Hegel’s “Science of Logic” (as referenced by Hans, [2007SP:2]).
It is interesting that Hegel uses his particular definition of quality to illustrate evolution and

10 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
development through contradiction and negations, thereby becoming more fully “real” in the
process and ultimately, in Hegelian metaphysics, the Spirit going beyond Nature.
(“finitude is only as a transcending of itself”).
It is perhaps not surprising that there are several well-known examples of quantitative
change leading to qualitative change, starting from the most elementary to those which are
most surprising and indeed counter-intuitive. Rollingrock [1995ut:6] suggests the application
of heat to water as a very well-known example whereby at the critical quantitative
temperatures of 0 and 100 degrees Celsius pure water at 1.0 Atm and 1.0G shall change in
phase from solid, to liquid, to gas. I will raise the question however if this phase-shift, which
can be understood as the form of the particle in different densities (solid the most dense, gas
the least), actually represents a qualitative change.
On the more counter-intuitive level, the behaviour of the Helium-3 isotope is an example
of a particle decay (quantitative value) and extremely low temperatures where the Pauli
Exclusion Principle is violated and the particle becomes superfluid.
Multiple superfluid helium-4 particles coexist with the same quantum state. Likewise I
would also like to raise the progress of logic systems where Godel’s incompleteness theorem
(1931) which shows that no sufficiently strong formal system can prove its own consistency
(i.e., at a certain level, a logic system can be either complete or consistent, but not both).
Bresid [2003fa:2] provides an interesting example of the physiological biosystem and the
interaction with anesthetics, in particular isoflurane, where a quantitative value can transform
from the substance being an anesthetic to being an euthanasia agent. Hans responds
[2003fa:3], quite appropriately, that the qualitative difference between an anesthetic agent
and a euthanasia agent is quite moot: “Is it merely the same quality with different effects?”
A matter which I find particularly interesting in the Bresid example is a closely related
subject of crisis. Pithily elaborated in the opening pages of the now classic text of social theory
“Legitimation Crisis” (Jurgen Habermas, Legitimationsprobleme im Spaetkapitalismus,
1973). In medicine it represents a point where, regardless of individual will, the physiological
system of an individual is tested to capacity in its ability to heal. In the environment,
or social systems, it is also sensible to speak of crises, points in time and place where the
capacity of the system is faced with a “life or death” test in its abilities to continue. In contemporary
environmentalism it is typical to speak of a quantitative increase in temperature
leading to a “tipping point” (between 2 and 3 degrees) where the qualitative effects are profoundly
destructive. I am even prepared to go a bit out an a limb and refer to a crisis in
literature, the point of the narrative where the protagonist, with the prior accumulation of
a quantity of aesthetic plot moments, either successfully confronts their antagonist (be that
the setting, circumstances or another character or, in the case of tragedy, confronts their own
weaknesses) as the climax of the story. Whilst on the aesthetic trajectory however, I will
take the moment to strongly concur with Hans’ comment [2003fa:8] that Marx uses quality
in the philosophical sense, meaning the properties belonging to the good itself, rather than
the aesthetic judgment of subjective taste.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 11
Where this comes into play is the relationship between quality and crisis. Hegel argues
that there is a ‘right’ quantity of a thing, it’s “measure”, and then in a particular example
[2007SP:1] and [2007SP:2] the measure of breast implants is normally two. If there is a
right quantity, it also stand to reason that there is a wrong quantity and - in the case of crisis
- a quantity that is so different that the existing state of affairs are no longer stable. It makes
me question - in reference to previous comments about David Ricardo’s notorious “Iron Law
of Wages” - that if there were an automated rather than punitive welfare system where, as
per the discourse of radical Georgists, each individual received a portion of the site-value
of all economic land, that whether the labour market would be so radically changed by this
quantity of automatic income that there would be a qualitative difference in the class conflict
between capitalists and workers*. I note Marx’s footnote to John Locke in the opening
pages of capital in this regard: “The natural worth [value] of anything consists of its fitness
to supply the necessities, or serve the conveniences of human life”.
Finally, I would like to conclude on Hans’ comments in [2007fa:37]. It was a different
question, relating to valid exchange values vs exchange values, but the issue of quality and
quantity is raised there. Marx argues that valid exchange values of a commodity represent
equal content in quality. This is raised as a counter to the use of exchange-values which
are quantified (by the highly distorted relations in supply and demand), but never qualified.
In doing so, it seems that neoclassical economics engaged in a mass deception to take out
qualitative questions **, as they would frustratingly lead to the conclusion of the primacy of
labour in value determination, along (if I may reference the Georgists twice) the commonality
of economic land. As such qualitative questions had to be screened out of discussion,
least the lead to political unpleasant consequences. “Political Economy”, the most important
moral and scientific study of the 18th and 19th century, became merely “Economics”,
heralding the era of the “dismal science”. That, in itself, is arguably a qualitative change
brought on by the sheer weight of arguments elucidating class exploitation.
* I have written on this relationship in the past and how the operation of the labour market
are vastly different from the idealised “free choice” suggested by neoclassical apologists:
“Working for Welfare in the Antipodes: An Incarnation of Wage-Slavery”
http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2004/69/lafayette.html
** William Stanley Jevons excluded; he considered the marginal analysis as complementary
rather than exclusive or as a replacement to the labour theory of value.
Message [24] referenced by [2008fa:20]. Next Message by Lev is [72].
Question 35 is 20 in 1995WI, 35 in 2008fa, and 37 in 2012fa:
Question 35 Bring other examples of relative “properties” such as beauty or use-value.
[6] Litsyemir: My Neighbor Bought a Boat. My neighbor’s house is bigger than mine.
He purchased additional commodities (in the form of upgrades), which I did not. These
commodities make his house more “comfortable” for him. Comfort is not a property of
the home, but relative to my neighbor and his “need” to have a certain comfort level. The
commodities he purchased - upgraded cabinetry, tile flooring, wrought iron railing, etc - all
add to his level of comfort, a relative property of the commodities.

12 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
The same neighbor also bought a boat. 35 footer. With flames painted on the side to make
it look faster. It’s the only one on the street. To tow his boat, he purchased a nice, new, top of
the line truck. He immaculately cares for his boat and his truck. The slightest speck of dust
is swept away or wiped off as quickly as possible. These commodities give him “prestige”.
Again, prestige is only a relative property he attaches to the commodities.
I try to use a day planner to keep track of my work, schooling and family life. My planner
helps me feel “organized”. Of course, being organized is a relative property unique to me
and my use of the day planner. To anyone, it might mean something entirely different.
These are just a few of the examples I came up with for other relative “properties”. And
yes, my neighbor does have a bigger house than I do. But he doesn’t have the boat or the
truck. I kind of wish I did. Just for the opportunity to “be a man.”
Hans: I don’t quite get it why you said “he doesn’t have the boat or the truck.” I thought earlier you said he did.
Regarding your first example: Comfort meets the human needs for a relaxing and protected home environment.
The “need to have a certain comfort level” is a derivative need created in a society in which neighbors vie for social
status.
Litsyemir: In response to your question Hans, I was using the purchase of a boat and truck as an example to
illustrate the point. I should have been clearer about that. My apologies.
First Message by Litsyemir is [4].
Multiple Choice Question 46 is 599 in 2000fa and 36 in 2001fa:
Multiple Choice Question 46 Which of the following is closest to Marx’s theory:
(a) The use-value of a commodity is the utility one gets from using it; the exchange-value is
the utility one gets from using those things one can trade the commodity for.
(b) Use-value is the quality of the commodity, and exchange-value is its quantity.
(c) Use-value is the use a commodity has to its owner, exchange-value is the use a commodity
has to others.
(d) Just as a painter needs a canvas as a carrier on which he can paint his painting, the
capitalist needs a use-value as a carrier for the exchange-value of the products his workers
have produced.
[256] Hans: Exchange-value a passenger of use-value. This was one of the multiple
choice questions on Monday.
(a) turns both use-value and exchange-value into human attributes, while Marx looks at
them as the social properties of the commodities themselves. See [231]. If you answered (a)
you got partial credit.
(b) Everything has a quality and a quantity, but not every use-value has an exchangevalue.
Use-value and exchange-value are not two sides of the same thing. This answer is
wrong because it takes a too harmonious view of our social relations. You should think of
use-value and exchange-value as two strangers locked into the same room. Before long they
will begin fighting.
(c) is wrong too. It turns exchange-value into a simple everyday human emotion, and
ignores the social structures which must be in place for an economy to be an exchangeeconomy
(private property laws etc.). If I desire my neighbor’s wife, this does not magically
make her exchangeable. The same is true if I desire his motorcycle.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 13
(d) is closest to Marx’s theory. It shows the distance between use-value and exchangevalue
despite the fact that a commodity has to have a use-value in order to have an exchangevalue.
Message [256] referenced by [2009fa:8]. Next Message by Hans is [268].
Question 61 is 61 in 2008fa and 64 in 2010fa:
Question 61 Marx discusses at length the question whether value is intrinsic to the commodity
or relative. What is the view of neoclassical economics? Does it consider value to
be intrinsic or relative?
[16] Jenn: (content A form 95% weight 50%) Marx discusses whether values are intrinsic
or relative at length. Neoclassical economics considers value to be based on an equilibrium
of cost in dollars of supply and perceived or observed demand. Although I believe this
way of thought takes relative value into account somewhat by using demand, it does place
more of an intrinsic value on products. This intrinsic value is a result of the emphasis placed
on supply costs, in dollars.
Message [16] referenced by [18] and [2008fa:42]. Next Message by Jenn is [61].
[18] Hans: Does Neoclassical Theory Really Have a Subjective Concept of Value?
Jenn says in [16] that neoclassical theory mainly uses an intrinsic concept of value (in cost
accounting), although relative value is somewhat taken into account through demand.
I agree but would put a different spin on it. If you read a neoclassical textbook, value
is defined as a relative concept. The value of a commodity is measured by the marginal
utility you receive from using the commodity. This means the value rests in how you see
the commodity, not in the commodity itself. This is called the subjective concept of value,
because value comes from the subject (the user of the commodity), not the commodity itself.
But when a modern firm does its accounting, it doesn’t follow this textbook wisdom but
uses an objective concept of value, which attaches the value to the commodities.
The contradiction between intrinsic and relative value, which Marx discusses in the assigned
readings, is therefore present in modern business and economic practice.
To resolve this contradiction, Marx makes a couple of inferential steps which bring him to
the conclusion: value is not created in commodity circulation but it is the surface reflection
of something the commodities receive in production.
The class materials discuss Marx’s steps in more detail, and I will give an overview tomorrow
in class. Without getting into the details of Marx’s arguments right now, it is perhaps
helpful to say that a look at modern cost accounting leads to the same conclusion. I.e., the
conclusions which Marx’s Capital derives in a specific and not always easy to follow fashion
can also be gained by different (but related) kinds of arguments. Here is this alternative
argument:
In the practice of cost accounting, the value of a product is determined by its cost. There
are two things wrong with this:

14 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
(a) This is a circular definition! The cost of a good is simply the value of those goods
entering its production, i.e., if you define value by cost you define the value of one good by
the value of other goods and still don’t know where any of these goods get their value from.
(b) Usually, the value of a good is greater than its cost; again, this indicates that you
cannot determine value by cost.
These are enough contradictions to look for the source of value not in circulation at all
but elsewhere (a logical candidate is production).
Message [18] referenced by [21], [307], [2008fa:42], [2008fa:46], [2008fa:583], [2009fa:1023], [2010fa:23], and
[2011fa:498]. Next Message by Hans is [20].
[21] SnatchimusMaximus: (graded A) I have to say that neoclassical economics views
value as relative. If value were intrinsic then prices would never fluctuate because a commodity’s
value is ipso facto. Thus, if prices never fluctuate then markets can never adjust and
the happy state of equilibrium would never be. Neoclassical economics argues that value is
indeed relative because markets are interrelated. Thus a commodity may be relative as an
inferior good or normal good, or as a substitute or complement. Neoclassical economics
also gives us the production function that states firms will produce until AC=MC. Hence if
a commodity’s supply is dictated by its costs and costs are relative to factors of production,
then a commodity’s value is relative not only to other related goods (i.e. inferior goods,
normal goods, complements, etc), but the commodity’s value is also relative to its factors of
production. It seems the only thing intrinsic about a commodity is its costs, and even those
fluctuate in the long run.
Hans: Good thinking. That fluctuations of prices are necessary for adjustment to equilibrium is also a point made
by Marx in 195:2/o. About the relation between prices and costs see my [18].
Message [21] referenced by [2008fa:583]. Next Message by SnatchimusMaximus is [161].
[307] Paul: The neoclassical view of value is definitely relative. This is because prices are
always fluctuating and if value was intrinsic this would not be possible. As a result of prices
fluctuating, it gives markets a chance to adapt and conform so they are able to reach the equilibrium
of the expenditure of supply and the apparent demand. Value is also relative for the
fact that the consumer, in reality, decides the value of any given commodity. Hans [18] says
that the value of a commodity is measured by the marginal utility you receive from using the
commodity. Therefore different people could believe that a commodity is worth an entirely
different value. Take a blood sugar monitor, a diabetic would value this product extremely
high while a non-diabetic has no need for this and would deem this product valueless. This
demonstrates that the given value of a commodity can be biased and personal.
Hans: Yes, in neoclassical (i.e., mainstream) theory, prices are derived from utility. There is not the strict separation
which Marx makes between “value” and “use-value,” but the concept of utility could be considered their concept
of value. This value is not intrinsic in the commodities but relative, since it depends on the usefulness of the
commodity to its owner.
Next Message by Paul is [313].
[347] Bennett: The view of neoclassical economics is that of maximizing your utility,
or simply the satisfaction that is associated with your consumption of goods and services.
Another neoclassical view is that buyers look to increase their gains from purchasing goods,
and they achieve this by increasing their purchases of products until their gain from another
unit is balanced by what they have to sacrifice to obtain it. The neoclassical view on value is
that value is relative to the value that the person purchasing the product or service gives it.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 15
Next Message by Bennett is [348].
[361] Ande: To me the view of neoclassical economics is that value is intrinsic to the
commodity rather than relative. They view items to be intrinsic because there is really no
such thing as a relative value of a commodity. Because of all the use values and exchange
values there could never be a relative value of any certain commodity. You could not have a
bag of rice that has a relative value to a can of soda. It does not work like that; value has to be
intrinsic and the neoclassical economics portrays this same view. This is how I interpreted
it through the many readings of Marx. With money, use value and exchange value there is
no way a commodity can have a value that is relative, all the values of the commodities are
intrinsic, I believe this and in reading all the articles I believe that this is the same view as a
neoclassical economics.
Hans: I am not sure you understand that “neoclassical” economics is the mainstream economics which explains
prices by demand and supply, and demand by utility functions. The value theory implicit in mainstream economics
is relative or non-intrinsic in two ways:
(a) since value is marginal utility, it does not rest in the commodity but in the person using the commodity.
(b) Neoclassical economics does not need absolute levels of utility but only relative levels, it needs to know
whether A or B is preferred.
Next Message by Ande is [362].
[382] Allen: In neoclassical economics value is considered to be relative. Value is relative
because commodities will change prices due to changes in the economy, such as stated
by Marx in 126:2. The actual value of the item changes relative to proportions and also
exchange-value of an item remains relative to the commodity and changes along with different
circumstances.
Hans: This is Marx’s argument why exchange-value does not seem to be intrinsic to the commodity. Neoclassical
economics uses the entire apparatus of the utility function to explain exchange-values, and this is indeed a relative
concept of value, since the utility function is anchored in the user of the commodity, not the commodity itself.
Message [382] referenced by [529]. Next Message by Allen is [385].
[529] Alcameron: The neo classical view of the exchange of a commodity is that its value
is relative rather than intrinsic. The very nature of the term exchange value helps us realize
that the value is subject to change based on the particular exchange. Depending on the time
and place (which market) you are in your commodity could have a higher or lower exchange
value. Another important factor is labor and how much is in that commodity. The exchange
value of a commodity is directly related to the amount of labor in that commodity.
Hans: As Allen in [382], you are not describing neoclassical, i.e., mainstream economics here but you give Marx’s
arguments why value does not seem intrinsic. Then in your last two sentences you are switching abruptly to value
determined by labor, which is something intrinsic.
Next Message by Alcameron is [530].
Question 62 is 36 in 1996ut, 33 in 1997ut, 65 in 2010fa, and 73 in 2011fa:
Question 62 Formulate in your own words the two contradictory statements Marx makes
about the commodity when he introduces exchange-value.
[283] Bmellor: Contradictory statements about the commodity. We can look at the
contradictions as follows: we are all familiar with the “relativity and variability of exchange
proportions.” Meaning that at different times and different places commodities might be
exchanged in extravagant proportions. But in other parts Marx introduces the manifestation
of exchange-value as something anchored in the commodity, as a second property which

16 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
commodities have in addition to their use-values, this is an item we are familiarized with
while reading Marx’s thoughts. These two items are contradictory.
Next Message by Bmellor is [288].
[302] Inter: Revisiting the exchange-value contradiction. The exchange-value contradiction,
that Marx explores, seems to be a contradiction of terms. Namely, that on the
one hand Marx explains that the exchange-value of a commodity is determined from the
relation it shares with another commodity. This relation is highly variable and based on
circumstance. While on the other hand exchange-value is something that is inherent to the
commodity. This is a contradiction because if exchange-value is inherent to the commodity
then it stands to reason that it cannot be based on relations with other commodities.
In my test response, I failed to adequately explain the contradiction, because I was focused
on the relative nature of exchange-value that a commodity has. I did not fully develop
the idea that exchange-value is inherent to the commodity, but rather developed the idea that
use-value is inherent to the commodity.
Next Message by Inter is [305].
[306] Dentist: Exchange-value was at first introduced as a property that was actually
possessed by and intrinsic to commodities. From this, the contradiction arises in terms of
exchange-relations. Because how can a property be specific to each commodity, and yet at
the same time be completely relative when compared with other commodities?
By an analysis of the conflict that exchange-value is attached to the commodity and yet
entirely relative, the solution comes to the surface that exchange-value is not the particular
essence or substance within the commodity, but it is the expressor of that substance. It is
therefore this expression that is relative and not the actual properties of the commodities
themselves, and that this substance is something entirely different from “exchange-value.”
Later we go on to learn that this substance (value) is ultimately determined by labor.
Next Message by Dentist is [311].
[320] Sparky: Marx’s contradictory statements about exchange value are-
1. The exchange value is something that is attached, a part of a commodity’s use-value.
Exchange proportions is not up to a stand-alone commodity, it is up to its relation to another
commodity, which is affected by other, outside, circumstances, which can change with the
weather.
2. That the exchange value is not something that belongs to a inner necessity, as said in
the annotations. It shows that the relation of the commodity compared to other commodites
is the real selling price of the commodites.
Next Message by Sparky is [467].
[325] Scott: 2 contradictory statements. When Marx introduces the exchange value he
contradicts himself. He first says an exchange value of a commodity has a worth inherent in
a good. He later says that exchange value is determined by the circumstances outside the of
exchange value. Marx doesn’t say that these statements are either true or false, but he says
there must be more to the problem than he sees. Hans [1997ut:13] wrote, “The contradictory
evidence surrounding the exchange value is an indication that the exchange value reaches
into the invisible core of the economy. Therefore we have to take a closer look, which
probes beneath the surface.” Bobdog [2004fa:10] gave a great example comparing this to a

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 17
man “standing inside a building who has trouble understanding what makes the trees sway
back and forth.” Marx is the same way, he only sees what is happening on the surface but to
come to any conclusion he is going to have to go beneath the surface.
Next Message by Scott is [326].
[374] Mitternacht: graded A Contradictory statements about exchange-value. In the
section where Marx introduces exchange-value he quickly comes to a contradictory point.
Which is his way of uncovering truths and for seeing things as they truly are.
He shows that on the one hand the exchange-value of a commodity appears to be something
that is inherent to the commodity. Since a commodity may be exchanged at set amount
for various other things in different measures it would appear that this exchange-value is
inherent in the commodity itself.
He also demonstrates that the exchange-value for a particular thing ends up being variable
depending on other conditions which contradicts the first discovery that exchange-value
appears to be inherent to the commodity.
Upon looking more closely Marx finds that exchange-value is just an echo, or surface
reflection of an immaterial value that lies within the commodity. The value is provided by
labor in the production of the commodity.
Next Message by Mitternacht is [784].
[379] Rey: graded A In forming statements regarding exchange value Marx seemingly
forms a contradiction. In Marx’s earliest introduction of a commodity’s exchange value, he
presents exchange value as being independently anchored within the commodity. In addition
to the idea that exchange value is anchored within a commodity, Marx describes exchange
value as a second property of a commodity. This second property is described by Hans on
page 20 of his annotations as “a second property, which commodities have in addition to
their use-values.” In this case the exchange value is only “expressed” in the actual exchange.
Regardless of when or where the commodities are exchanged their values remain constant.
In summarizing this approach, the exchange of commodities only “expresses” their value
rather than defines it. The other half of the contradiction comes as Marx discusses the effect
that variables such as time and place, can have on the exchange value. The fact that exchange
value is connected somehow to the actual exchange, suggests that exchange value is in fact
not anchored within a commodity. Marx is appearing to state that a certain commodity has
more or less value based on the time and place of an exchange. According to this thought
the exchange of commodities defines value rather than simply expressing it.
Hans: You have to distinguish more explicitly between exchange value and value. The weakest point in your little
essay is the sixth sentence where you without comment go from exchange-value over to value. Exchange-value is
a surface category, value is a category of the underlying sphere of production. Exchange-value is the expression
of the value. At the very beginning Marx only talks about exchange-value; he has not yet gotten to the point that
exchange-value is remotely controlled, i.e., the expression of some aspect of social production. If you only look
at exchange-value without knowing yet about value, then the contradiction is that exchange-value seems inherent
in the commodity (because it is the expression of something inherent, namely, value), and exchange-value seems
relative (because this expression is an expression in the surface exchange relations).
In your in-class answer you have underlined seemingly in the first sentence. Marx would still call it a contradiction
(not just a seeming contradiction), even if it can be explained. Marx thinks that reality is full of contradictions,
and I think this is indeed a helpful way of looking at things.
Next Message by Rey is [386].

18 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
[405] Trailrunner: content A late penalty 1% Exchange-value is related to what society
will exchange regarding one product for another - an equality of each commodity, regardless
of its use value. This would be the relative or relational expression of the two commodities.
But there is also the instrinsic expression of the commodity which takes us to looking at what
the commodity really is. Thus, we would look at the commodity as an independent unit. We
would recognize that the commodity can be exchanged for many other commodities and in
many different proportions. This also looks at the labor that is involved in the production of
the commodity.
Therefore, exchange value is not only about what it can be exchanged for on the market,
but for what it actually is and is made up of.
Next Message by Trailrunner is [406].
[590] Wade: The exchange value is decided by the formality of the exchange.
A commodity’s importance is decided by the exchange-value.
Next Message by Wade is [731].
Question 64 is 63 in 2007fa, 64 in 2008fa, 66 in 2009fa, 67 in 2010fa, 61 in 2012fa, and
67 in Answer:
Question 64 The French economist Le Trosne wrote that the value of a thing consists in
its exchange-proportions with other things. Does Marx agree with this, or how would he
re-formulate this proposition to make it correct?
[17] Chris: Le Trosne’s exchange value quote. It appears from select passages in Marx’s
Capital Volume 1 that Marx does think that exchange value is determined by the other objects
for which it would be exchanged. However, I do not believe that he would format this
opinion like Le Trosne. Marx does suggest in Capital V. 1 on page 126 that “exchange-value
appears first of all as a quantitative relation, the proportion, in which use-values of one kind
exchange for use-values of another kind.” Therefore, Marx does appear to be insinuating
that an object’s exchange value is determined by the item for which it would be exchanged.
However, Marx also mentions the importance of an object’s use value. It is in the use value
that I feel Marx would re-formulate Le Trosne’s proposition.
Earlier, on the same page in Capital V.1 (pg. 126), Marx suggests that a use value is
simply “the usefulness of a thing.” Therefore, I think it is important to bring up the notation
that one person may value an item’s usefulness differently depending on each person’s
own desire to need or want its usefulness. This notation would also correlate directly to an
object’s exchange value. As Marx also suggests, “use-values are only realized in use or in
consumption (pg. 126).” So, we must assume or hope that the person realizing the use-value
will use all of its value, or use it to the point where the person is satisfied.
After reading the passages on page 126 and 127 of Capital V.1, I would presume that
Marx is suggesting that a thing’s exchange value is considered as well as its use value.
Therefore, Le Trosne’s quote is partly correct in Marx’s mind. I would also like to mention
that Marx would re-formulate his idea of the value of a thing exactly as he does on page
126 and 127 of Capital V.1. On these pages he goes into great detail to explain use-value
and exchange value. He then presents a commodity exchange example to give life to his

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 19
explanations. These two pages introduce an important idea of placing value on given objects
and can be considered a re-formulation of Le Trosne’s respective quote.
Hans: You are trying to read Marx closely, but you are still overlooking a couple of things:
(a) Marx always develops his thoughts, and usually very slowly. He has a much longer breath than most modern
readers. Therefore you cannot just pick out individual sentences and try to interpret them by themselves; they are
usually part of a longer argument. I tried to give a bird’s eye view of this argument in [20].
(b) You also have to read every single word. I would like to give two examples.
(b1) If Marx says in 126:1 “The utility of a thing for human life makes it a use-value” then this is not the same
as saying that use-value and usefulness are one and the same thing. By “use-value” Marx means those physical
properties of the things which make it useful and/or desirable for humans, but unlike modern economists he is not
thinking of the degree of satisfaction which humans might draw out of this.
(b2) Let me premise my next example with the reminder that the word “value” for Marx always means “labor
content.” If Marx says that value manifests itself at first as a quantitative exchange proportion between commodities,
this is not the same as saying that the value is determined by this quantitative exchange proportion. Let me go
through these two statements in turn.
(b2A) As Marx sees it, commodities are exchangeable because they contain labor. I.e., that what determines the
exchange proportions does not happen on the market but it happens in production. Marx would therefore say that
the exchange-value is determined by labor content, not by the exchange proportions of a good with other goods.
(b2B) Now if someone produces something that is needed by society, i.e., someone has spent his or her labor
in a socially useful manner, then society rewards him for this by the fact that this good is exchangeable for other
things which that producer might need. That is the meaning of the sentence that the value manifests itself as an
exchange proportion.
Next Message by Chris is [35].
[20] Hans: Does Marx agree with Le Trosne? In 126:2, Marx writes:
“Exchange-value manifests itself at first as the quantitative relation, the
proportion, in which use-values of one sort are exchanged against usevalues
of another sort ...”
and in the footnote Marx quotes Le Trosne:
“The value consists in the exchange proportion between one thing and another,
between this amount of one product and that of another.”
Since these two sentences sound so similar, question 64 asks whether Marx quotes Le
Trosne because he agrees with him? The answer is no. Marx is critical of Le Trosne. He
uses Le Trosne as an example for an analysis of value which gets stuck on the surface.
Here are the details about this. The biggest difference between the Le Trosne quote and
the Marx quote is: the Le Trosne quote is Le Trosne’s definition of value, while the Marx
quote is only one step in a long and slow development in which Marx explores the question
“what is it that makes commodities exchangeable?”
Let’s look at this long and slow development first. Marx begins his study of capitalist
society with the commodity. Each commodity has two aspects, use-value and exchangevalue.
Marx briefly says a few things about use-value. But if we want to understand the
economic structure of our society we must look at the exchange-value, i.e., that quality
inside the commodities which makes them exchangeable.
However just when Marx gets ready to explore that which makes things exchangeable,
he is hit by a big Oops moment. Namely, Marx says: oops, maybe my search for something

20 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
inside the commodities which makes them exchangeable is misguided, since the exchange
proportions between commodities are so relative and variable. How can something so relative
and variable be generated by something inside the commodities? And he uses Le Trosne
as his witness for this: Le Trosne was indeed saying that the value of a good consists in what
other goods can be exchanged for it, i.e., it is something completely relative and not inherent
in the commodity at all.
Although Marx calls Le Trosne as a witness, he does not agree with him. Marx’s own
resolution is the following: the exchange-value itself is not inherent in the commodities, but
the exchange-value is the surface expression of something that is indeed inherent, namely,
the social labor-time accumulated in the production of the commodity. This accumulated
labor-time Marx calls “value” as opposed to “exchange-value”. Le Trosne only sees the surface
relation and does not see the inherent property of the commodities, their labor content,
of which this surface relation is the reflection.
Message [20] referenced by [17], [22], [258], [376], [383], [628], [2009fa:365], [2010fa:26], and [2010fa:30]. Next
Message by Hans is [23].
[22] Goethe: As I understand [20], Marx is associating a “labor-time” value to a commodity;
if this is true then the greater the labor involved in the production of a commodity
the greater value it will possess. I would not agree with this! And I will give an example:
If I were to spend a great amount of time and labor in the production of a commodity that
is not in high demand, I will only receive what the market will allow. The variable is the
market value. My question here is: How do market prices affect exchange value?
This is not to say that Marx’s idea of labor value is not good in theory, but realistically
in today’s economy it would be very difficult to place a value on a commodity based on the
labor used to produce the commodity. This also brings efficiency into the equation. If a
commodity is produced with the greatest efficiency, is the value affected?
I could be completely off on this as I am not sure if Marx is looking at value and exchange
value in different terms.
Message [22] referenced by [23]. Next Message by Goethe is [78].
[23] Hans: Can the Labor Theory of Value Work? Just a brief response to Goethe’s
[22]: Yes, Marx’s theory is the labor theory of value. According to it, long run prices are determined
by the supply side, and quantities are determined by demand. I.e., if a commodity
which takes a lot of labor fetches a low price, then less of this commodity will be produced,
until the price rises to the level which is proportional to the labor content. This adjustment
happens by producers switching their labor imput from those industries with relatively low
prices per labor input to those with relatively high prices.
Message [23] referenced by [345]. Next Message by Hans is [29].
[258] Srichardson: graded A Marx does not agree with Le Trosne that the value of a
thing consists in its exchange-proportion with other things. Le Trosne’s definition of value
is different of that of Marx. Marx believes as Hans points out in [20] the exchange value
itself is not inherent in the commodities, but the exchange value is the surface expression
of something inherent, namely the social labor-time accumulated in the production of the
commodity. Marx calls this value while Le Trosne expresses this as exchange value.
Next Message by Srichardson is [259].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 21
[278] Goethe: graded A Marx would not agree with Le Trosne when he writes that the
value of a thing consists in its exchange-proportions with other things. Marx sees exchange
value as the exterior expression of the labor used to produce the thing. Le Trosne only sees
the exterior value as exchange-value; he does not see the interior value which is the labor
content.
Message [278] referenced by [2010fa:193]. Next Message by Goethe is [280].
[286] Chris: value relations defined by Marx. Marx’s definition of the value of a thing is
much more complex. He would not start out by saying that value only consists of exchangerelations
of other things. He would first explain that for a thing to have value, it must have a
use-value and an exchange-value. Marx does this quite literally by even titling his first essay
on the subject, on page 125 of Capital, “The two factors of the commodity: use-value and
value (substance of value, magnitude of value).” The use-value would be defined by what
the commodity could be used for. On page 126, Marx’s exact words are “the usefulness of a
thing makes it a use-value.”
After explaining the use-value, it is then necessary to define what the exchange-value of
a thing is. This is where I have noticed the water getting a little muddy. The exchange-value
is what people would be willing to exchange for that commodity and as Marx quotes on
page 126,“exchange-value appears to be something accidental and purely relative.” He says
relative in regard to how much the people doing the exchange need or want the thing.
As I noted previously, I think that the water gets muddy when discussing the exchangerelations
of things. This is where we find human-labor coming into contest. Human-labor,
as discussed by Marx, begins as a social form. Different societies producing different commodities
will then exchange their commodities dependent on current and future desires. In
summary, I think that Marx would re-formulate Le Trosne’s quote, by saying that the value
of a thing must have both use-value and exchange-value. He would then begin his dissertation
of social human-labor like he does throughout Capital.
Hans: The thing that’s missing in Trosne is not the use-value, but Trosne fails to distinguish between surface and
depth relations. Trosne identifies value with exchange-value, while Marx says that commodities receive their value
in production, and exchange-value is the surface manifestation of value.
Next Message by Chris is [287].
[311] Dentist: Marx definitely does not agree with Le Trosne in this instance. For Le
Trosne, a commodity’s value has no direct relation to the commodity itself. Value is only
relative between commodities; neither of them possesses any value independently from the
other.
This is in opposition to everything that we have read so far. So why then does Marx bring
it up? I believe that it is largely due to Marx’s particular writing style and thought process.
Marx is using this quote as if to answer a possible question that may come to a reader, and
then refute it. As Marx is explaining these concepts we can imagine a reader asking himself,
“how can some actual, measurable and definable property of a commodity be expressed so
subjectively, and vary so widely?”
Marx can see this question coming and uses Les Trosne to address it. He then in effect
answers the potential question by criticizing Les Trosne’s statement. And here is how. Le
Trosne believes that value does not exist within commodities as an actual property, but rather

22 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
value is relative to, and between commodities. His evidence for this is the apparently subjective
nature of exchange-value. Marx however sees that this idea only planes the surface
of exchange value and does not go deep enough to truly understand this property.
According to Marx, value is possessed by the commodity, and originated from the social
labor-time necessary to produce it. This value is real and something that is actually a part of
the commodity, and is expressed outwardly as exchange-value. And rather than exchangevalues
being seemingly random and subjective, they are actually manifestations of the labortime
that was necessary for their production.
Next Message by Dentist is [471].
[332] Jenn: graded B Le Trosne test question. Marx partly agrees with Le Tronse’s
statement, but would make one change to this phrase, shown in parentheses; “The (exchange)
value of a thing consists in its exchange-proportions with other things.” As Hans cites in
[2007fa:105], Le Trosne believes value is defined in the market, and Marx believes value is
defined in the production process. Therefore, Marx would feel that Le Trosne is not looking
at value in its entirety. Exchange-value does not come from the value of the commodity
itself, but is an expression of value relative to other commodities. Marx explains that value
can be reduced to one factor common to all commodities - abstract labor. Labor is required
for the production of all commodities, and therefore is a logical choice for the assessment of
the value of a commodity.
Hans: Labor was not “chosen” by anyone to assess the value of a commodity; it is the spontaneous outcome of a
market economy that prices are proportional to labor content. See [144].
Next Message by Jenn is [343].
[335] Oldgreg: graded C Marx would not agree with Le Trosne, but would reformulate
the proposition to be correct. Le Trosne assertion is a practical viewpoint for traders but has
no application of value for the use of a commodity. Marx would argue with the seemingly
contradictory dual nature of a commodity having use-value and exchange-value. With Le
Trosne’s position, it is impossible to know what value a commodity has without any comparisons
to other commodities. Without an ultimate use there is little foundation of what
purpose a commodity ultimately has. Marx’s position is ultimately superior in that a commodity
can have value inherent.
Hans: Marx’s value theory is not prescriptive. It is a serious error this far into the class to have this misunderstanding.
Marx argues that the actual interaction between consumers and producers in the market leads to an outcome
in which commodities are treated as globs of congealed human labor, i.e., as values. I.e., the market relation of
exchange-value reflects the hidden relations of production. See my [144] about the mechanics of this.
Next Message by Oldgreg is [336].
[339] Tim: graded B– Marx does not completely agree with the proposition because he
argues that exchange-value can not be inherent in the commodity. In other words Barbon
[Bar96, p.6] said that nothing can have intrensik value. I think that by this he means that
exchange-values vary over time, and that depending on the time and place of the exchange
a commodity can go up or down in value. A commodity does not have one set value but
many values depending on the situation. For example, during a rain storm a person who
does not want to get wet but does not have an umbrella would be willing to give up more for
an umbrella than a person who does not mind getting wet or already had an umbrella. In the
umbrella example the umbrella would have a higher exchange value for the man without an
umbrella who did not want to get wet. A man who does not mind getting wet or one who is

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 23
already equipped with an umbrella will not want to exchange much for an umbrella. Marx
would agree that the exchange value has part to do with the commodity’s ability to be traded
in proportion with another commodity but there is more to it than that.
Hans: You didn’t notice that Marx argues against Barbon. If you want a good grade, don’t write “there is more to
it than that” without elaboration.
Next Message by Tim is [346].
[340] Matt: No, Marx does not agree with Le Trosne, even though Marx does say in
Capital that the “exchange-value manifests itself at first as the quantitative relation, the proportion,
in which use-values of one kind exchange for the use-values of another kind.” This is
a similar view to what Le Trosne says of how the exchange value manifests itself. However,
Marx’s thought process goes a little deeper than just the surface value between commodities
and their exchange-value that Le Trosne speaks of. Marx feels that Le Trosne is leaving out a
very important part of the commodity by not including its “use-value”. The use-values Marx
is referring to in a commodity are the actual physical properties that make them useful in the
first place. It’s like saying, “I use a shovel because I can dig holes with it.” There is a usevalue
to me within the commodity “shovel,” because of its physical properties only. Marx
then goes on to say the commodity’s “labor time” equals its “value,” and not the “exchangevalue”.
If a lot of time/labor was put into making a commodity then it will have a greater
value within itself. Though the price it fetches on the market may not equal its labor value
or “labor time” according to Marx’s theory. This is where Marx’s view point differs from Le
Trosne.
Hans: What Trosne leaves out is not the use-value but the value. Marx thinks that exchange proportions on the
market are governed by labor content, i.e., they are the expression of something that originates in production, while
Trosne thinks exchange-value is a pure surface category without roots in production.
Marx allows for it that prices can deviate from values; but if they do, then he assumes that there are economic
competitive mechanisms which drive prices towards values.
Next Message by Matt is [341].
[358] Raynold: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S3c3
Transition from the General form of value to the Money form
The universal equivalent form is a form of value in general. It can, therefore, be assumed
by any commodity. On the other hand, if a commodity be found to have assumed the universal
equivalent form (form C), this is only because and in so far as it has been excluded from
the rest of all other commodities as their equivalent, and that by their own act. And from
the moment that this exclusion becomes finally restricted to one particular commodity, from
that moment only, the general form of relative value of the world of commodities obtains
real consistence and general social validity.
The particular commodity, with whose bodily form the equivalent form is thus socially
identified, now becomes the money commodity, or serves as money. It becomes the special
social function of that commodity, and consequently its social monopoly, to play within the
world of commodities the part of the universal equivalent. Amongst the commodities which,
in form B, figure as particular equivalents of the linen, and, in form C, express in common
their relative values in linen, this foremost place has been attained by one in particular –
namely, gold. If, then, in form C we replace the linen by gold, we get,
The Money-Form

24 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
20 yards of linen = 1 coat = 10 lbs of tea = 40 lbs of coffee = 1 quarter of corn = 2 ounces
of gold = 1/2 a ton of iron = x Commodity A = = 2 ounces of gold
In passing from form A to form B, and from the latter to form C, the changes are fundamental.
On the other hand, there is no difference between forms C and D, except that, in
the latter, gold has assumed the equivalent form in the place of linen. Gold is in form D,
what linen was in form C – the universal equivalent. The progress consists in this alone,
that the character of direct and universal exchangeability – in other words, that the universal
equivalent form – has now, by social custom, become finally identified with the substance,
gold.
Gold is now money with reference to all other commodities only because it was previously,
with reference to them, a simple commodity. Like all other commodities, it was also
capable of serving as an equivalent, either as simple equivalent in isolated exchanges, or as
particular equivalent by the side of others. Gradually it began to serve, within varying limits,
as universal equivalent. So soon as it monopolises this position in the expression of value
for the world of commodities, it becomes the money commodity, and then, and not till then,
does form D become distinct from form C, and the general form of value become changed
into the money form.
The elementary expression of the relative value of a single commodity, such as linen, in
terms of the commodity, such as gold, that plays the part of money, is the price form of that
commodity. The price form of the linen is therefore
20 yards of linen = 2 ounces of gold, or, if 2 ounces of gold when coined are £2, 20 yards
of linen = £2.
The difficulty in forming a concept of the money form, consists in clearly comprehending
the universal equivalent form, and as a necessary corollary, the general form of value, form
C. The latter is deducible from form B, the expanded form of value, the essential component
element of which, we saw, is form A, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat or x commodity A = y
commodity B. The simple commodity form is therefore the germ of the money form.
Hans: Literal quotes from Marx are unacceptable as answers to these question, because I have no way of telling
how much of this quote you understand. And I don’t see how this quote is relevant to the question about Le Trosne.
Next Message by Raynold is [575].
[359] Slash: Difference of opinion. Marx does not agree with everything Le Trosne says.
Marx defines value as the labor in producing a product. Le Trosne sees value coming out of
the market, which does not reflect labor in a way Marx sees things. Since Marx understands
value to be the labor put into a product I should not have said in my in-class essay that
Marx agrees with Le Trosne. I was confused in thinking that Le Trosne found value to be
a measure of labor as Marx does, but I have now learned that they differ on principle. Le
Trosne finds value in the market, where Marx find value in labor, or production. If Marx
and Le Trosne where to discus the question of 20 feet of linen = 1 coat. Le Trosne would
say that 20 feet of linen could produce a coat giving that linen value in producing use-value
in the form of warmth in a coat. Marx on the other hand argues that 20 feet of linen is
equal to 1 coat in means of labor, or that the process of making 20 feet of linen is equal to
making 1 coat. This of course is assuming that the producer of both the linen and the coat
is making this good for the propose of trade, otherwise if one kept the product it would not

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 25
be a commodity and would therefore have no value. If Marx was to rephrase Le Trosne’s
statement he would say something like: the value of a thing makes it exchangeable.
Hans: It is not a different value judgment (way of “seeing things”) but a different theory how market prices are
determined. Le Trosne says they are determined in the market, and Marx says they are ultimately determined in
production.
Next Message by Slash is [360].
[370] Samantha: Labor is the intrinsic value of a thing. Marx would disagree with
this statement, as he believes value to be intrinsic to the good because of the labor that
produced the good while Le Trosne considers value to be from the exchange-proportion.
This is a fundamental difference, while Marx recognizes that there is a slight relationship
between exchange-proportions and value, the relationship is based not on labor but on the
bourgeois determination of price. The price of a good and therefore its value (from the
bourgeois perspective) is derived from the exchange-proportion and the cost of labor, but
not the actual labor that went into the product. Marx would say something like “the value
of a thing consists, not of its exchange-proportions, but of the labor that went into actually
making the thing.”
Hans: This is a good description of the difference between Marx and Le Trosne, but the labor theory of value is not
a theory determining the value of a good by its costs. See my [2007fa:45], [2007fa:49], [2007fa:113]. about this.
Prices are not set by the bourgeoisie, as you say in your in-class answer, but by a competitive process described in
[144] in which labor content acts as the big and unspoken “elephant in the room.”
Next Message by Samantha is [440].
[372] Jeremy: Marx does not agree with Le Trosne’s proposition that the value of a thing
consists in its exchange-proportions with other things. To correct the error, Marx would
reformulate it to say that the value of a thing consists in its use-value in proportion to other
things. Through this correction, it becomes obvious that value is derived not from an outside
object acting upon a thing, but rather that thing’s value is an expression of itself. Marx
continually states that value, also referred to as labor, is a congealed substance within a
commodity. Therefore, an item by itself has inherent value without needing another object
to reflect value.
Marx also states that exchange proportions vary on time period, region, as well as the
nature of the exchange. Because this cannot be a constant, Marx adheres to the fact that
value is not in the exchange, but in the production.
Hans: Marx says that value is inherent in the commodity, but he explicitly rules out use-value. In 127:4–128:1 he
says: “This common substance (value) cannot be a geometrical, physical, chemical, or any other natural property
of the commodities.” Value is the labor used to produce the commodity treated as if it was a homogeneous physical
substance inside the commodities.
Next Message by Jeremy is [373].
[376] Bar: graded A From [20]: In 126:2 Marx explains the relationship between exchange
perportions,
“Exchange-value manifests itself at first as the quantitative relation, the proportion, in
which use-values of one sort are exchanged against use-values of another sort ...”
The quote sounds very similar to the quote of Le Trosne, but we know that Marx thinks
that the commodity is mysterious and is more than meets the eye. Marx introduces the idea
of use-value and labor time, concepts into the debate of the value of a commodity, where
Le Trosne only sees value as to what it could be exchange for. Le Trosne does not dig deep

26 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
into the soul of the commodity like Marx; this is why Marx does not agree with him. I think
Marx proves really how mysterious the commodity is when he realizes like Le Trosne how
it seems like the value of the commodity is constantly changing and variable to what it can
be exchanged for. The whole way that Marx thinks is stepping out of the societal box and
looking at the logic that surrounds something: not just explaining the system and what value
is in the system, but what value is, and how it would change if the social characteristics were
more altruistic than they currently are, his logic is astounding. To reinforce my previous
endorsement to the falsity that Marx agrees with Le Tronse it is a resounding No.
Hans: Marx’s critique of capitalism is not that it not altruistic enough. His main critique is that people relate to
each other through things and therefore forget that they are dealing with people rather than things. Compare 187:1,
where he criticizes people’s atomistic behavior.
You are making a good observation: Marx adheres to strict, dry, abstract logical thinking so that his analysis
does not get infected by the prejudices prevalent in the society he is analyzing while living in it.
Next Message by Bar is [380].
[383] Brandon: graded A After reading more closely I have come to realize that Marx is
not so much agreeing with Le Trosne, but rather reiterating Le Trosne’s analysis of exchange.
According to Hans’s interpretation of Marx in [20], Marx uses this as a stepping stone to
explain the long process of determining how commodities are exchangable. In his further
examination of this, Marx comes to realize that the exchange-value is not found within the
commodity itself but rather the product of labor.
As I understand it, this represents a form of supply-side economics, in which the amount
of time and labor spent on the thing determines its exchange-value. Whereas Le Trosne
only views the exchange-value as proportional relationship between commodities and their
use-values.
Hans: Instead of “the exchange-value is not found within the commodity itself but rather the product of labor,” I
think a more precise formulation would have been
The source of exchange-value is not found within the physical body of the commodity itself
but it is the amount of labor necessary to produce it.
More details about this in [415].
Message [383] referenced by [415]. Next Message by Brandon is [384].
[416] Hans: Value inherent in the commodities but not derived from use-value. Several
answers, [364], [387], and several others, said that Marx, unlike Le Trosne, connects the
value to the use-value of the commodity. Marx says that value is inherent in the commodity.
This does not mean that it is connected with the use-value of the commodity. Rather
it is a ghost-like “value material” socially associated with the commodity, namely the labor
necessary to produce this commodity.
The labor that was necessary to produce the commodity no longer exists. But society
associates it with the body of the commodity as if it was a physical attribute. For instance
the price of that commodity is (in Marx’s theory) a reminder of that labor-time.
Here is one of my dadaist fables trying to make things more intuitive: Assume an imaginary
society in which all newborn babies get a tag around their wrist which says how long
their mother was in labor. And these tags are elastic; they grow with the baby and are never
taken off; instead they are considered an important attribute of the person. Kids would argue
in the playground “but my mother was twenty hours in labor and yours only four, nah nah
nah na nah nah.”

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 27
The price signs of commodities are analogous to these hospital tags: they point to something
that really happened in the past, and this past event is carried into the present as a
relevant issue. Not by the social custom to never take the hospital tags off, but by production
of commodities, which turns each product of labor into a claim check on other people’s
labor. Of course, there is better justification to never forget the labor time necessary to produce
a commodity than to never forget the time a mother labored to give birth to her child,
because the production labor time can be used to allocate social labor-time. But it is only
one possible form of allocation, and the big problem with it, as Marx tried to argue in the
section of the fetish-like character of the commodity, that here a social relation takes the
form of the property of an object, and therefore can (and does) get out of control.
Message [416] referenced by [387]. Next Message by Hans is [419].
[628] Rmuscolino: The French economist Le Trosne wrote that the value of a thing consists
in its exchange-proportions with other things. Marx somewhat agrees with Le Trosne,
but re-formulates this proposition by saying it reflects the practical concerns of the commodity
traders, but is also one-sided. Marx states, “A theoretical analysis has no hope of
uncovering the real connections if it does not take all aspects into consideration, even if they
are contradictory.” Marx is saying that Le Trosne’s point of view isn’t totally correct because
Le Trosne is confusing the exchange-value to be within the commodity, where Marx says
the exchange-value cannot be inherent in the commodity and has precedents in the literature.
Hans: I can tell that you looked at the Annotations, but you didn’t understand them. You should have read it again,
until you do understand it. In some respects you say exactly the opposite of what Marx tried to convey. Your in-class
answer was less confused. The archives of the class discussion is a good resource, especially my contributions, for
instance I think my [20] might have been helpful.
Message [628] referenced by [634] and [659]. Next Message by Rmuscolino is [631].
Question 68 is 277 in 1996sp, 56 in 2005fa, 67 in 2007fa, 68 in 2008fa, 71 in 2009fa,
and 72 in 2010fa:
Question 68 First give Marx’s arguments how one can come to the conclusion that exchangevalue
is not something inherent in the commodity. Then reproduce, in your own words,
Marx’s rebuttal that, despite these arguments, exchange-value seems to be something inherent
to the commodity after all.
[19] Bar: content B form 95% Exchange value is not inherent in the commodity as Marx
puts it, “money has an exchange value.” In other words Marx is arguing about the distinct
nature of the exchange price, the price of the commodity depends not just of the commodity,
but of the particular value of money. In nominal terms the price of oil lets say is $3/ gallon
internationally, but how is this translated into other markets lets say the Colombian peso
with is a 2:1 ratio with the dollar or $1 = 2,000 pesos to them, the price of gas will be
the relative 6,000 pesos relatively a much higher price. He goes on to say that through
a contradiction that the commodity is not inherently linked to the exchange value, as the
exchange value has value only through its value to another commodity. “a proportion that
changes with time and place..... something accidental and purely relative.” What Marx is
saying is that the fluctuations created in the market on the commodity in relation to other
commodities creates dependant value instead of intrinsic value of the commodity, He goes
on to use the word “replaceable.” He concludes that in the end there is a social relations to

28 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
the commodity and the exchange value that this value could be the tip of the ice burg so-tospeak
of the underlining social relation to the value of the commodity. the conclusion and
rebuttal to the inferences about the relativity of exchange, is that exchange value is intrinsic
to the substance inside the commodity, that this underlying relationship goes on to explain
the exchange proportion. It looks like Marx is setting-up the premise for his labor theory
of value, which I wonder will conclude that the substance that joins intrinsic value with the
exchange value is labor involved in producing the commodity.
Hans: The digression about money in the first half of your answer is out of place. Marx has not yet introduced
money. Right now he is only looking at the ordinary commodities and not yet at money. Therefore everything he
says must be explainable in terms of ordinary commodities.
Later you say some promising things, but you only hint at them, you don’t elaborate them enough. You should
write it in such a way that someone who does not understand what Marx is getting at in this passage says ”oh now
I see what Marx meant.”
Next Message by Bar is [99].
[388] Mick: graded A Exchange value appears to not be inherent in a commodity because
this value is not defined by the commodity itself, but by its value in relation to other commodities.
For example, currencies are not purchased as single entities, but in pairs. They are
traded in pairs because it is necessary to measure a currency (commodity) in terms of another
commodity. Since supply and demand of various commodities is constantly fluctuating, the
price does not seem to be inherent within the commodity itself.
The fluctuations of value can be attributed to fluctuations in a substance that the commodity
already contains before its exchange in the marketplace. Marx posits this question and
then through deeper analysis discovers that the exchange values between two commodities
is reducible to a third commodity. This third measure is value, or the abstraction from use
value that functions as a consistent measure of a commodity’s exchange value. This abstraction
is abstract labor, which maintains a consistent relationship with the exchange value of a
commodity.
Hans: Not all price fluctuations can be reduced to fluctuations in value. At the present very general level of
analysis Marx can only say that prices are remotely controlled, i.e., they are the surface expression of something
that is happening in production (labor). This distance between surface and underlying production process allows
other influences to affect prices as well. See 195:2/o.
Next Message by Mick is [389].
[483] Ken: use-values carry exchange-values? Marx argues that “use-values are the material
carriers of exchange-value”. A commodity can have a use-value, even if that commodity
does not have an exchange-value. However a commodity can not have an exchange-value
without a use-value. Exchange-value is independent of the use-value. If a commodity can
be attained without labor being necessary, the commodity does not have an exchange-value.
When labor is required in order to maximize the potential of a commodity that already
has a use-value, then the use-value will be the “material carrier” of the exchange-value.
Exchange-value is constantly changing depending on social factors, time and place it can
not be inherent in the commodity. Depending on how these factors change, the exchangevalue
of a commodity could be drastically different. This validates Marx’s argument that the
exchange-value is not something inherent in the commodity.
Marx then opposes his argument, explaining how exchange-value seems to be inherent
to the commodity. When a commodity is traded, an amount of something is traded for an

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 29
amount of something. These two amounts are equal in worth, but are different goods. This
shows that the exchange-value is inherent to the commodity.
Next Message by Ken is [484].
Question 79 is 78 in 2008fa and 97 in 2012fa:
Question 79 “Exchange-value cannot be anything other than the mode of expression, the
‘form of appearance’, of some substance distinguishable from it” (p. 127:1).
a) How did Marx come to this conclusion by observing the exchange relations between
commodities?
b) What is this substance distinguishable from the exchange-value?
c) Does mainstream economics distinguish between exchange-value and the substance expressed
by exchange-value?
d) Why must this substance be equal for all commodities?
e) Why can it not come from their use-values?
f) How does Marx come to the conclusion that this substance comes from labor?
[32] Hans: Marx’s argument so far. This question summarizes Marx’s argument as I
understand it, therefore I thought it a good idea to give you the answers which I had in mind
when formulating the question.
(a) Marx observed the contradiction that exchange-value is on the one hand something
immanent in the commodities, and on the other it is something relative between the commodities.
He resolves this contradiction by saying that the exchange-value is the surface
expression of the value, i.e., the labor, inside the commodities. In this way he covers both
poles of the contradiction: exchange-value is immanent because it is the expression of something
immanent, and it is relative because this immanent substance expresses itself through
the exchange relations which are relative.
(b) The substance inside the commodities of which the exchange-value is the expression
is the labor.
(c) Marx says that every commodity has two aspects, on the one hand a use-value, and
on the other, an exchange-value, which have little to do with each other and have different
origins. Mainstream economics does not separate the two but tries to explain the exchange
proportions by the use-values, i.e., by marginal utility. If a commodity has a high price on
the market this is because people like it a lot. A capitalist makes high profits if he makes lots
of people happy. This is quite a different way of looking at things than Marx’s interpretation
which says that commodities get their value in production by the labor of the production
workers.
(d) On the market, people measure their commodities by a one-dimensional measuring
stick, namely, money. Marx argues that in the long run, such a social interaction on the
surface of the economy can only maintain itself if commodities are also one-dimensional
in production. This one-dimensionality in production is the human labor needed for every
commodity. Although the labors themselves are as different as the commodities, they are
all performed by humans who are very versatile regarding what they can do. This versatile
capacity to work is the “abstract human labor” which gives commodities their values.

30 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
(e) Each individual who makes an exchange looks at both use-value and exchange-value
(or price) of the goods exchanged. But if all those millions of transactions are taken together,
the use-value considerations cancel out, and the only thing that remains is that each usevalue
is as good as any other. That is why Marx says the exchange is characterized by an
abstraction from use-value.
(f) By looking at the market, one can see that people equate their commodities, but one
cannot infer from these surface interactions what the basis of this equality is. Marx says
labor is the “only thing” which the commodities have in common, in other words, there is
no other candidate that can fill this role as convincingly as labor.
Message [32] referenced by [156], [279], [2012fa:52], and [2012fa:319]. Next Message by Hans is [33].
[279] Dyoung: a) Marx comes to this conclusion because like he said “the exchange-value
can’t be anything other than the mode of expression and the form of appearance.” He also
states that the commodities must contain something equal, but this equal thing can’t have
anything to do with their use-values. He was able to see that each commodity had a different
expression and appearance than the other making each commodity unique in their own way
and they are the means to support human life.
Hans: The above Marx quote is how you wrote it in your in-class exam, i.e., it is a quote from memory. You left
out the end of the sentence. The full sentence from 127:1 is: “Exchange-value ... cannot be anything other than the
mere mode of expression, ‘form of appearance’, of some content distinguishable from it.” This is the place where
Marx reports his conclusion, but quoting this does not help us understand how Marx comes to this conclusion.
Look at (a) in my my own answer [32] for a brief summary of the argument leading up to this conclusion. Note that
Marx didn’t write that every commodity is a different expression and appearance than other commodities, but that
exchange-value is the expression or appearance of something different than exchange-value.
b) The substance that is distinguishable from the exchange-value would be the use-value
in the market place. Each exchange-value has a different use-value to the consumer of the
commodity.
Hans: According to Marx, the substance of which the exchange-value is an expression or appearance is not usevalue
but the thing which Marx calls value, which is the labor spent to produce the commodity.
c) Yes it does distinguish between the exchange-value and the substance expressed by
exchange-value by their use-values are qualitatively different.
Hans: Yes. Mainstream economics says what you said in (b), that the exchange-value is an expression of the
use-value, namely it is the marginal utility, a measure of how much people like the use-value.
d) Because if it was not equal for all commodities it would create problems when trying to
exchange these commodities in the market because each commodity won’t be valued fairly.
Marx also states that commodities must contain something equal, but this equal thing cannot
have anything to do with their use-values. He says that there is only one other thing which
commodities have in common “If we then disregard the use-value of commodities, they have
only one property left, that of being the product of labor.”
Hans: The “must” in the formulation of the question is an inferential must, as in the sentence “you are smiling,
you must enjoy this.” It was a little out of place, I re-formulated the question for the next edition.
e) Because each use-value could be very different. Each use-value would depend upon
the individual using the commodity and if its not from the use-value it can only come from
the Labor.
Hans: Use-values are different even if you don’t look at people’s preferences but the use-values themselves (my
[231] tries to explain this difference).

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 31
f) Marx comes to the conclusion first by saying that the common substance must be
something social since it is not natural and then he introduces Labor and then he is set
on Labor is the only possibility. Marx states that “Labor is the additional judgment” to
determine the substance value by how long it takes to finish the commodity. Labor is the
most important substance in any commodity
Hans: The sentence “labor is an additional judgment” does not come from Marx but from my interpretation of
Marx. Only the two-column part in the Annotations is Marx himself speaking, everything else is my own efforts to
understand Marx’s arguments.
Thank you for the courageous act of taking on this long and difficult question. I hope my commentaries help
you understand the issues better.
Next Message by Dyoung is [281].
Question 81 is 44 in 1996ut, 67 in 2004fa, 79 in 2007SP, 80 in 2008fa, 85 in 2010fa, 97
in 2011fa, and 95 in 2012fa:
Question 81 Why did Ricardo’s discovery of the determination of value by labor attract
the following critique: “Mr. Ricardo’s system is one of discords . . . its whole tends to the
production of hostility among classes and nations . . . His book is the true manual of the
demagogue, who seeks power by means of agrarianism, war and plunder.”
[31] Aaron: Ricardo value of labor. When discussing the value of labor and the finished
goods, Marx recognizes the fact that the value of a good might be different to different
people, according to the use-value theory. I believe that Marx observes that the value of a
good might change in the blink of an eye, and “in our own hands,” because the beauty of
the product is in the eye of the beholder. It goes without saying that in our market place
the consumer looks at a commodity as in use-value. Marx argues that the value of the same
product is different in the eyes of the producer or manufacturer. The comment that the
value changes “in our own hands” tells me that Marx had a keen understanding that different
classes of people will value a good differently. As to say, my wealthy friend might pay 3000
dollars for a painting that I would only pay 300 dollars for. The use value in this sense
may be a product of class in society. The price that my friend and I are willing to pay is
indifferent to the amount of labor the artist used to paint the piece. In this section, Marx
does not observe the reaction that supply and demand might pull the “value.”
Hans: Marx is as guilty as Ricardo of a theory which gives justification to class discontent and unrest. Both Marx
and Ricardo have an objective theory of value, a theory which considers value as something real, as more than an
attitude. Marx’s argument with social labor being transformed in our hands only makes the step from concrete to
abstract labor. It does not turn value into something relative and subjective.
Message [31] referenced by [33] and [210]. Next Message by Aaron is [53].
[33] Hans: Labor Value and Class Hatred. Once I overheard two young people in the
Snowbird tram – they were employees who used their employee pass to get some skiing in
before or after work – say to each other: I can’t imagine having to pay full price for this. To
me this seemed to be a serious deficit of imagination. What they should be imagining is that
lots of people pay full price for the Snowbird tram and they don’t even care. They probably
spend a couple hundred dollars per person in the restaurant after skiing, etc.
The question why some people have money to burn is the incendiary question which
makes the labor theory of value so “demagogic.” As long as it is just a different utility
function which causes Aaron’s rich friend in [31] to pay $3000 for a painting which Aaron

32 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
himself did not find that great, then social peace can be maintained. But if the hundred dollar
bills hanging out of Aaron’s friend’s coat pockets represent labor, more labor than Aaron’s
friend could possibly ever have performed, then the question is inevitable: why does he have
the money and not those who did the work?
Message [33] referenced by [156] and [2010fa:64]. Next Message by Hans is [37].
Question 84 is 82 in 2007fa and 83 in 2008fa:
Question 84 Is Marx’s concept of “value material” attached to commodities, but separate
from their physical material, a metaphor? Is it a phantasy, an invention, which Marx needs
to hold his labor theory of value together? Is Marx going overboard here? Or does it really
exist?
[27] CousinIt: graded A Is “value material” a metaphor? I would flatly disagree with
Ozz [2007fa:54] who states that value material is a metaphor. This is not to say that it doesn’t
act metaphorically and variably, depending on the ‘reality tunnel’ that one happens to find
oneself inhabiting. Metaphor and metonym are really merely matters of scale of variance
and variance of scale of magnitude of repetition and pattern, are they not? As stated by Hans
[2007fa:58], I, too, see value-as-‘congealed labor’ to be an actual social substance that, while
being invisible as an apparent physical feature of the commodity, is nonetheless very real in
its ultimate force/effect upon the real material lives of real people. This is true in much the
same sense as when critical scholars of discourse, text, and rhetoric claim that words have
very real material effects on people in the world.
In stating my disagreement, I am taking a radical materialist stance; a stance much like
that taken by quantum physicists who hypothesize very real material forces, even those that
cannot be seen, that do not ‘appear’ to be ‘real’ or ‘material’, that is, those ‘invisible’ or
‘ethereal’ substances of the universe that nonetheless are thought to exist. In taking this
stance, I feel I must make very clear that it is my perspective that all material, everything
in the universe, including thought and relationship, is made up of relations, exchanges, and
transformations of energy. Further, I would state that energy is all that all material consists
of. All material in a wholly material universe is in essence energy expressed in variable manifestation
of form and degree of substance, some more coarse, some more refined and subtle.
This includes those substances that are not tactilly manipulated or apprehended by the human
physical apparatus, but also those that are manipulated and apprehended psychically,
emotionally, mentally, and socially. I fully recognize that for some I may be perilously stepping
out on a philosophical ontological limb, yet, I do believe that my perspective is equally
as provable or dis-provable as a perspective that claims to be able to clearly delineate between
the material and the non-material. Again, such a view does not necessarily exclude
metaphor, but, actually gives metaphor a material basis and claim (..thus, I have now come
full circle to the contradiction in my own argument that Ozz [2007fa:54] is incorrect, yet,
as we now know from reading Marx and by benefit of Hans’ generous and insightful comments,
contradiction is not to be avoided but rather exploited as an opportunity for deeper
analysis...).

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 33
From this perspective, then, Marx is not just flailing about for a bolster to his argument
when positing a value material. In this sense Marx can be viewed as a hard-core radical materialist
in the utmost sense, rather than accused of being some sort of surrealist illusionist
or cunning rhetorician. From my perspective, to speak of value as a ‘immaterial substance’
is a bit of an oxymoron. It amounts to placating those who insist on introducing some otherworldly
spiritualism into the scientific materialist dialectic... i.e. a sort of a historical artifact
of the time that appeals to particular superstitious perspectives that haunt our understanding
even more so than labor-power ‘haunts’ the commodity. Accumulated labor power, on the
contrary (rather than some sort of ’spook’), is a very real element of the commodity that
manifests as commodified social relations and produces value material out of a very real
material reaction between the commodity, abstract labor, and the totality of social relations
in capitalist society and culture. Perhaps, in an effort to spoon-feed so as not to overwhelm
or overtax, to avoid overtly challenging the superstitions of our time, Marx did not go far
enough?
Message [27] referenced by [29]. Next Message by CousinIt is [30].
[29] Hans: It’s real because someone has a claim on it. CousinIt [27] first emphatically
agrees that “value matter” is immaterial yet real, but then he thinks he needs to justify this,
and after some handwaving with modern physics he says it’s not matter but energy. Marx
didn’t get it right because he didn’t know Einstein’s E=mc2. (CousinIt didn’t say it in so
many words but I think this was his gist. If I mis-interpret you, please speak up.)
The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are irrelevant for the issues at hand,
and it is a mistake to bring them into the discussion. The explanation why past labor-time
in capitalism lives on as a social substance is much more mundane. The labor-time spent
on producing the commodities is a social reality because those who performed this labor
need to be paid so that they can survive. Therefore the firm which produces these things is
maintaining spreadsheets allocating their costs to the products produced. The past labor-time
of the products has social reality because someone in society remembers it, watches over it,
has a claim on it which they can enforce with the court system. You don’t need Einstein for
this.
Message [29] referenced by [30], [308], and [2008fa:107]. Next Message by Hans is [32].
[30] CousinIt: graded as part of [27] Value material. I don’t think I was trying to refute
Marx or suggest that he got it wrong, but merely to suggest another possible way we
could look at the issue from a radical materialist perspective, for those for whom the idea
of a ‘social substance’ seems esoteric and intangible. By referring to labor power as energy
expended I was trying to make a sort of materialist warrant for the materiality of a social substance.
I do realize that it is enough to say that someone is owed something in exchange for
the labor put into producing a commodity, that the laborer is short-changed by the capitalist
and has a valid claim, and personally have no problem with saying so. Perhaps I was a bit
heavy-handed and over-zealous in bringing physical science into the discussion? I do think
I was going more for an analogy about things that are real yet invisible or not-so-readilyapparent
and a warrant for depth analysis, rather than a 1 to 1 correspondence...Thank you,
Hans, for your comments...
Hans: Let me try to explain my point again: The performance of labor is a real process. You don’t need any
philosophical arguments to know that. The labor process is real because it has a real effect: without the labor
process, the product would not be there. But Marx says that the labor process has two results: on the one hand it

34 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
creates the product, and on the other it creates the value of the product. In other words, society remembers how
much labor was expended to produce this good, and this social memory is attached to the good. The ontological
question is, since the good itself is inanimate: who keeps this memory and how is it associated with the product? I
don’t see how the notion of labor as energy expended helps here.
My own answer, which I tried to explain in [29], is: society does not forget how much labor went into the
product because those who performed this labor have now, in turn, a claim on the labor of others. This has nothing
to do with the question whether the laborer gets a full value of the product or is short-changed. In both situations,
there are such claims, and there are social procedures to keep track of these claims (punch clocks, accounting
spreadsheets, cash registers, etc.). These are society’s housekeeping instruments which keep track of the invisible
”value material” in the products.
Next Message by CousinIt is [65].
[295] FacistFrank: No this is not really a metaphor, the value material is really separate
from the physical properties. Only use value can be utilized by the object’s physical
properties. Two commodities with the same use value cannot be exchanged for each other,
that would be like exchanging a box of cigarettes for the exact same box of cigarettes! Why
would anyone do this, it would be ridiculous. But this is strange because if you are exchanging
two or more items for other items they must collectively have an equal value, or must be
perceived to be that way. But different use values cannot be equal, that would be a logical
contradiction. So the exchange value must be equal and the use values must be different,
and because use values come from physical properties, the real value must not come from
use value or physical properties, Marx says it comes from labor. Actual value is determined
by the labor put into the making of the commodity. Actual Value, (the real price paid for the
good) is a social expression that humans have toward the commodity.
Hans: Your last sentence sounds as if exchange-value comes from the way the good is viewed in society. This
is not Marx’s theory. He thinks labor is the elephant in the room which shapes these views, see [144] and the
references there.
Next Message by FacistFrank is [296].
[298] Alex: graded A The statement is necessary to hold Marx’s labor theory of value
together. The question is whether it is accurate, and does exist. It does exist, it can’t be
false as Marx is connecting other important theories with this one. The distinction is where
the reality lies. “Value” versus “physical” is heavily distinguished by Marx. In fact value
theory is one of Marx’s most important distinctions. One has to understand that when Marx
talks of value he means there is something in addition to physical. It is not just a metaphor,
fantasy or invention, there is meaning in value. Theories of labor require an explanation of
materials. The entire labor process and therefore value of commodities are affected by this
materials distinction. When context is given for materials it is easier to understand Marx’s
writing in further chapters about fetishes, social processes, etc.
Hans: Instead of saying “there is meaning in value” I think you meant to say “value is based on something real”
or similar.
Your argument why it can’t be false is a little cavalier. Indeed Marx, and modern critical realism, do not claim
that they can’t be false. They consider themselves fallible. Of course, this is hard to tell from the way Marx is
writing. He writes as if he was making a mathematical proof.
Next Message by Alex is [299].
[308] CousinIt: graded A+ Value-material. Marx’s concept of “value-material” is meant
to denote the actual social substance attached to commodities, i.e. the congealed abstract
labor put into the commodity. Marx does not mean this as mere metaphor. The “valuematerial”
is the socially necessary labor put into producing the commodity. As Hans [29]

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 35
points out, someone did the labor and has to be paid for it so that they can subsist. The
producer who put the labor-time into the commodity can lay claim to the labor so as to be
able to exchange it for the labor of others in society (perhaps, but not always, in the form
of some use-value or other). Labor-time is remembered, documented, watched over, and
legitimated in capitalist society. Labor-time is a social reality that, although immaterial, is
nonetheless very real in its material effects.
Hans: Since this is such a good and comprehensive answer I’d like to make it even more comprehensive by pointing
out two possible sources of misunderstanding:
(1) From the use-value of a good it is usually apparent that this good is the fruit of human labor. (Not always;
a cow looks like a natural creature, one does not immediately see the millenia of domesticating and breeding that
went into it.) Marx does not mean this. Marx says that apart from its use-value, the labor content is worn by the
commodity like the emperor’s new clothes.
(2) The expenditure of human labor-power is a real aspect of the production of the commodity. But after the
production process is finished, the labor-power has been used up and no longer exists physically. The commodity’s
value-material is so-to-say the afterlife of this used-up labor-power. It continues to exist even after it has been used
up, through the social convention which keeps track of it and attributes this labor-power to the product. (There is a
problem with this when the labor process does not materialize itself in a tradable product; in a commodity society,
those labor processes are not given enough attention, they are often not even recognized as labor.)
Next Message by CousinIt is [309].
[316] Gerund: Value material, attached to commodities but separate from their physical
material, is not a metaphor or an invention Marx creates to hold his labor theory of value
together, but rather an actual trait imbued into the object when it is created through labor.
I think of it as being like the electric charges in atoms which hold them together. Most
mass is actually empty space; tiny particles circling other tiny particles, held together by a
form of energy which exhibits in the relations between the particles, but not in their physical
material. Value material is present in the objects, and exhibits in their relations, but not in
their physical material.
Next Message by Gerund is [317].
[323] PrivateProperty: ”Value Material” is Physical. According to Marx, “value material”
is actually a physical part of the commodities, and not a mere phantasy or metaphor.
Nature provides the raw material, and it is the worker who transforms it into a commodity.
The physical makeup of the commodity, the finished product, is therefore owing to the labor
that produced it. This physical makeup is an expression of the labor taken to produce the
commodity, and therefore is an expression of value within the commodity.
Hans: The physical materials as modified by the labor process are the use-value of the commodity. These usevalues
are not homogeneous, they are therefore not the “comon substance” of the commodities expressed in their
exchange values. You are making here the same error which I already tried to correct in my remarks to your [209].
Let me try again: Marx claims that capitalist society acts as if all commodities were filled with some immaterial
homogeneous substance. It is like the emperor’s new clothes. Even the labor process itself is affected: it has a
double character, because it must not only produce the use-value of the commodity but also form this immaterial
substance.
Next Message by PrivateProperty is [402].
[364] Carterryan: Value Material of the Commodity. This is a metaphor used to relate
Marx’s concept, and is not a literal expression because you cannot remove the material from
the commodity in a physical way. Marx is trying to compare the use-value of the commodity
not the materials itself. The use-value is the only factor that Marx wants to be used in the
exchange or bartering of commodities, and a way of seeing the benefit to the community.

36 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Marx does not use this as a fantasy or invention to support his theory, but more as he is
stating his view of what the labor and use value of this commodity can be worth.
Marx is using more of an analogy to relate the material value, it is not literal and he does
not seem to go overboard but just to illustrate the theory by creating a good visual for this
theory.
Hans: On the contrary, Marx makes a strict separation between value and use-value. And Capital is not about how
Marx wants exchange relations to be determined, but this is Marx’s theory about how exchange relations are in fact
determined.
Message [364] referenced by [416]. Next Message by Carterryan is [365].
[375] Wasatch: Marx’s concept of “value material” is a metaphor. I personally don’t see
this metaphor as going overboard or being fantastic. The value of a commodity is made
up of the actual physical material, which we can hold in our hands along with this added
“metaphysical” value, which you cannot touch, or hold in your hand, but is very real. We’ve
all held similar commodities in our hands that seem to have different “value material”. Let’s
look at two chairs, both having the same use-value. One chair took much more labor-power
to produce than the other. When we handle the chair with more “value material” we can
feel, in a metaphysical sense, that it has more value. The other chair doesn’t contain the
same amount of ghostlike value, or “value material” as the other. “Value material” is very
real. Maybe consumers have a sixth sense when it comes to value that gives them the ability
to feel/sense the value material that each commodity possesses.
Hans: A sixth sense is not necessary; look at [144].
Next Message by Wasatch is [377].
[410] Aaron: Marx’s theory of value material is attached to commodities and I don’t
believe that it is a metaphor. I think Marx really attaches the materiality as something which
is like an object without being an object itself... as Hans puts it in the annotations. I believe
that this means a commodity can have words attached to it that do not necessarily mean
precisely what the word says. My example would be the “top” seeded team in a basketball
tournament. This does not literally mean that they are the top, meaning highest altitude,
team. Much like the example in annotations of “your royal highness.” The value material
seems as if it is an important concept in the labor theory of value and should be accounted
for. I don’t believe that it is a fantasy or invention because no matter how much labor is
involved in a commodity, certain materials have an intrinsic value to the end user. I believe
that Marx uses this concept not to hold his theory together, but because he believes that
“value material” can play an important role in value. Just as a ghost can consist of matter,
but not in a physical manner.
Hans: Your theory that “certain materials have an intrinsic value to the end user” has nothing to do with Marx’s
value material.
Next Message by Aaron is [411].
[587] JPeel: content A late penalty 43% Marx’s concept of “value material” attached to
commodities, but separate from their physical material, is more of an invention rather than
a metaphor, where Marx needs to hold his labor theory of value together. Marx isn’t really
going overboard because it really does exist. “The definition of materiality, as opposed to
‘material’ is here: something which is like an object without being an object itself.” And
Marx is saying commodities, as values, consist of a non-physical yet material-like substance

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 37
called value materiality. It is somewhat a metaphor but Marx is creating more of an invention
when relating it to the commodity.
Next Message by JPeel is [588].
[652] Nstew: I think Marx is going overboard here by basing too much of the value of
a commodity on labor. There are other factors that are closely related to the value of a
commodity. I think the need or demand for a commodity plays a larger role in the value of a
commodity.
Hans: You are making it abundantly clear that Marx’s theory is not convincing to you, and this is of course your
right. But the study questions must be answered from within the Marxian paradigm; they test whether you understand
Marx’s theory.
Next Message by Nstew is [653].
Question 89 is 87 in 2007SP and 87 in 2007fa:
Question 89 We know now that value consists of abstract labor. What does exchange-value
consist of?
[28] Dyoung: What is Value and Abstract Labor? Exchange-value is not a price, it
is a social relation that takes the form of an immaterial substance inside each individual
commodity. This consists of a value and abstract labor. This means that we take a nonphysical
trait of a commodity like labor that is put into a certain commodity and through this
process we are able to calculate the value of this commodity. Hans says “the exchange-value
is the means by which the value in the commodities forces us to recognize.”
I work in a jewelry store where we sell very expensive watches where it can take 8-10
months of labor to create one watch, this includes a form of immaterial substance of labor
which is forced to be calculated with the end value of the watch, so I agree with Hans’s
statement that exchange-value does force us to look at why a certain watches are $6,000.
There are many examples of commodities that take on an immaterial substance inside
the process which we are all forced to recognize. This process must be included in the
production of the commodity or the commodity would never become a commodity.
I also think that the exchange-value that is created from this process allows individuals
to buy and sell their commodities. It has been said by Jakeman [2007SP:476]: “if you want
a certain commodity but you don’t think the value is worth the suggested price, then you
can wait to see if the price will go down,” or I think that you can try and bargain with the
person selling the item and try and agree on the true worth and value in the market that
would be satisfying for both individuals without compromising the value and the abstract
labor involved in creating the commodity.
Hans: You are affirming and illustrating Marx’s notion that the value of a commodity is an immaterial social
substance residing in the commodity. Question 89 was asking something different, namely, it was asking about
exchange-value as distinct from value. As I tried to argue in [2007SP:38], the question “what does exchange-value
consist of” does not make sense because unlike value, exchange-value is not an immaterial substance residing in
the commodity.
Next Message by Dyoung is [49].
Question 92 is 57 in 1997WI, 57 in 1997sp, 63 in 1999SP, 65 in 2001fa, 66 in 2002fa, 68
in 2003fa, 78 in 2004fa, 77 in 2005fa, 90 in 2007SP, 90 in 2007fa, 90 in 2008fa, 93 in
2009fa, 97 in 2010fa, and 117 in 2011fa:

38 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 92 Is it a character flaw to be lazy in an exploitive system?
[35] Chris: tactical lazyness and productivity. Before giving a “yes” or “no” answer
to a rather sophisticated question, I would like to first define what an exploitive system
entails. One can define exploitive as “to use selfishly for one’s own ends” or “to utilize,
especially for profit” (www.dictionary.com). From the same source, a system would be “an
assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole.” From
these definitions, I find it a character flaw to be a part of the formation of an exploitive
system. This would entail one to have no moral attachment to the harmful labor practices
(we have been discussing labor so I am using the “system” as a business and its workers and
owners within it) that occur on the subjective members of the exploitive system.
If these subjective members to the exploitive system understand that they are a part of
such an exploitive system, I find it wrong on their behalf to not stand up and try to fight
such a system. I am being careful in using the word “wrong” instead of “lazy” because I
do not believe that they are lazy for not standing up against the exploitive system. I say this
because I am aware that each subjective member (you can think of them as workers) may
have a family that they need to provide for, bills to pay; amongst other obligatory actions.
In most cases, the only way for the subjective members (workers in my example) to fight
against the system is by only doing the minimal amount of work. This lowers productivity,
profits for the system, and strain on the subjective members, plus they are able to keep their
job and meet their obligations; whatever that may be. This action is not lazy and nor is it a
character flaw. This is downright tactical and genius. So, in regards to the question, I feel
that no, it is not a character flaw of the members of the exploitive system to be “lazy” in their
productivity for the system.
I was also quite taken back by Marx’s passage on page 130:1/o of Capital when he discusses
labor (labour) productivity and value, all of which I feel tie into this question. In his
words, “the less the productivity of labour, the greater the labour-time necessary to produce
an article, and the greater the value.” This quote would insinuate to me that a subjective
member appearing lazy by lowering their productivity is doing just that to raise the commodity’s
value. This is again, not a character flaw but a knowledgeable action on behalf of
the subjective member. Using this select passage from Marx and my own example, I still
feel that there is no character flaw present.
Hans: About your last paragraph: if Marx says that lower productivity leads to higher value this does not mean he
thinks lower productivity is good. It only means: if productivity is low then more labor is needed to produce the
good.
Message [35] referenced by [36] and [37]. Next Message by Chris is [38].
[36] Ryoung: Does lazyness equal lack of integrity. Does laziness, in an exploitive
system, equal a lack of integrity? I think Chris [35] in his response gave us helpful insight to
what is considered an “exploitive system”. When I think of an exploitive system my thoughts
immediately turn to a previous class discussion I had in a past semester. The discussion was
whether or not teenage workers are exploited due to their low wages? My first response
was that, yes, they are exploited. My thoughts later ran deeper on the subject. After much
thought I continue to believe that most teenagers and their low wages are products of some
forms of exploitation. I later asked myself if this exploitation is necessary or uncalled for? I

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 39
believe that this type of exploitation is not necessary but could be beneficial for the workers.
Yes, I said beneficial for the teenage worker! I say this because I believe that everyone in
life have their dues to pay, and that one can learn valuable lessons being placed in such a
situation as a these teenage workers. From personal experience I have learned many “life
lessons” when being in situations similar to these. It has been a great benefit to my character.
Chris [35] also mentioned that he feels it a “character flaw” to allow oneself to be part of
an exploitive system. I also tend to agree with him to a certain extent. We, as humans, find it
very natural to want things without having to work for them. We tend to get very impatient
and we also tend to get discouraged easily. We sometimes believe that life is awful and that
nothing goes our way. It is especially easy to find ourselves thinking in such a manner at the
start of our new jobs or when things aren’t exactly going the way we foresaw them going.
At times like these I believe we need to take a step back and let our emotions go to truly
be able to evaluate the situation. After our evaluations are complete and we feel that we are
being exploited I too, like Chris, believe it to be crazy to stay in such a situation.
In certain situations people may find themselves in these exploitive situations with no
where else to go. In some of these cases their wage may not be directly linked to their
individual production, and they in return may choose to exploit the same system that is
exploiting them. This can bring us to my answer of our original question, “is it a character
flaw to be lazy in an exploitive system”? I feel that the answer to this question can go both
ways depending on the situations presented. For example, if a man finds himself working
under an exploitive system and chooses to stay and work at a more “laid” back pace while
having other options out there for him, I do believe that it is a character flaw for him. On the
other hand if another man finds himself working under the same exploitive system and he
has no where else to go for another job I don’t see it as a character flaw but only if he would
change jobs when the opportunity provided itself. There are many things that are exploiting
to us and I believe that it is up to us to do all that we can to change the situation as much
as we can. I believe this question to be relative to the situation and the answer can go both
ways. Do these situations of exploitation equal a lack of integrity or does it depend on the
situation?
Hans: You are using the right methodology. Whenever an ethical question is asked, the answer is never absolute
but always depends on the circumstances and the options available.
Those with enough strength that they are not destroyed by the system but who draw discipline and character
growth from the blows meted out, should not underestimate their collective power. If they join hands, they can be
the disciplined and united counterforce that would be necessary to put an end to capitalist exploitation.
Next Message by Ryoung is [52].
[37] Hans: Being Discriminating Consumers is Not Enough. Chris [35] defines “exploitive”
as “to use selfishly for one’s own ends.” This is a methodological individualist
definition which focuses too much on the individual instead of looking at the social structure
in a holistic manner.
Marx says that capitalism is an exploitive system because society is split into two classes:
those who control the means of production and therefore draw income from the labor of others,
and those who have nothing to sell but their labor-power, and who can count themselves
happy if their wages are enough so that they can pay their bills.

40 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
The wealth of the capitalists therefore does not come from them using the system selfishly,
but we all live in a society which systematically distributes wealth from the majority to
a small minority, and they are rich because they happen to be in that minority. They benefit
from the system but they haven’t created the system. Nobody is to blame for the system; it
evolved historically and it socialized those growing up in it to play a role which allows the
system to reproduce itself.
We were brought up to think that our role is the one of worker and consumer. Elections
are basically expressions of trust into our leaders. We do not think we have a say in the
overall structure of the society where we live. We don’t have the training, we were carefully
taught not to take interest in such matters.
Whether you shirk work or whether you brown-nose yourself to the top, a Marxist would
say that these are adaptations to the system which keep the system intact. Instead of seeing
themselves as paying customers, Marxists exhort the working masses to consider themselves
as the rightful owners of the system. Marxists see the need to take the system back from the
elite which is getting rich off the labor of others, and which has become so greedy that it is
running the system into the ground before our very eyes.
Next Message by Hans is [39].
[45] Andy: According to Marx I would have to say no that it is not a character flaw to be
lazy in an exploitive system because he determines the value of a commodity by the amount
of the labor time spent on it. Thus making the product more valuable if a laborer was lazy
which makes no sense to me. So my answer would be yes that it is a character flaw to be
lazy because in order to get the most production you can’t have lazy workers. In my mind
being lazy doesn’t add value but takes value away from a product. The faster you can finish
production the more precise a company and even society in general will be. I believe that
laziness is a weakness, and can spread like wildfire, so it should be dealt with immediately
once it is found.
Message [45] referenced by [63]. Next Message by Andy is [51].
[46] Bmellor: When we discuss character flaws we are talking about an individual who
possesses imperfections or deficiencies that prevents “them” from otherwise being functional.
With respect to human labor to be functional in society, Marx suggests that we must
produce the commodity in a time frame that is acceptable to the public.[129:2] Time of labor
gives value however the quality of labor can be judged by a time frame expectation. For
example you take your car to a mechanic and he charges you an hourly rate to fix your car.
You might not know how to fix the problem yourself, but prior experience or word of mouth
tells you how long to expect. You are willing to pay for the labor up to that point. Once they
take more time than expected, you start to question the overall quality of the work. “Did it
really take 2 hours to change a spark plug?” If it really did take 2 hours is it a better job than
if had only taken 20 minutes? When your car breaks down again you will take the car to a
competitor that will do the same work in less time. The labor of the lazy worker produces
less value per the amount of time worked than that of the faster worker.
Hans: You started with question 92 but then quickly drifted over to question 95, giving a good explanation why a
lazy or unskillful laborer produces less value. But I do not really see a contribution to the ongoing discussion about
92.
Next Message by Bmellor is [81].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 41
Question 95 is 68 in 2002fa, 72 in 2003fa, 82 in 2004fa, 80 in 2005fa, 93 in 2007SP, 93
in 2008fa, 100 in 2010fa, and 118 in 2012fa:
Question 95 Imagine you were studying Marxism together with a friend, and the friend said
to you: Doesn’t the labor theory of value imply that, the more lazy and inept the laborer, the
more valuable his commodity would be? How would you answer your friend?
[41] Srichardson: graded B– studying marxism with a friend. I would point out to my
friend that Marxian argument establishes a difference between quantitative and qualitative
values. Marx says that “If we then disregard the use-value of commodities, they have one
property left, that of being products of labor.” [128:2] I believe Marx is making a wrong
statement in order to make his argument stronger. That there is a difference between these
types of value and to show that use value is important in bringing forth its value.
If a lazy inept worker spends more time on a product, the product’s use value is not
increased, because it doesn’t add additional value beyond the use value of a more productive
worker.
Hans: You are working on it, but you haven’t digested it all. You are right, Marx establishes a difference between
two kinds of value: but they should not be called qualitative and quantitative values, but use-value and exchangevalue.
In your second paragraph you give the neoclassical, not the Marxian answer as I tried to explain in [42].
Next Message by Srichardson is [69].
[42] Hans: Of course a lazy worker does not produce more value. Marxist economists
and neoclassical or mainstream economists have no disagreement here. It is simply a matter
of common sense. An unskillful or lazy worker does not produce more value than a skilled
and dexterous worker. Why would anyone ever bring this up as an issue?
Unfortunately, this agreement does not go very deep, because if you ask a neoclassical
economist why the slow and unskillful laborer does not produce more value, he will give a
different answer than a Marxist. The neoclassical economist would say: the value which the
consumer pays for is the use-value of the commodity, and this use-value is the same whether
it is produced by a slow worker or by a fast worker.
This is where the Marxist economist disagrees. The Marxist economist says: you cannot
throw use-value and exchange-value into the same pot like this! Of course the use-value of
the commodity is an important factor in the purchase decision. But when the cashier adds
up the prices in the check-out line, he or she does not add use-values, but these prices are
determined by the labor-times in the products.
Only at this point, if you concede to the Marxist that exchange-value comes from labor
and not from use-value, does the lazy worker become an issue. It is simply the issue how the
labor is measured. One cannot just use a stopwatch and measure the actual labor time that
was needed to produce that product. Instead, one has to use the socially necessary labortime,
i.e., the time which this product would take under the average conditions and with
up-to-date technology.
Why does a Marxist insist that you should not throw use-value and exchange-value together?
Because if you do this, you deny that every laborer, when they work, add value to the
product. The capitalists, of course, do not want to admit that all the value of their products,

42 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
including that part of the value which they stick into their pocket as profits, was produced
by the laborers whom they have hired at a low wage.
Message [42] referenced by [41] and [329]. Next Message by Hans is [44].
[63] Hans: Marx supporting a bunch of lazy rascals. When I formulated this question I
thought I was making up a hypothetical situation for didactical reasons only. I never expected
anyone in real life to read about Marx’s labor theory of value and to actually say: “this theory
does not make sense because it says that being lazy creates value.”
Well, Andy’s [45] says exactly that in his essay about whether it is a character flaw to be
lazy. And to top it off, with impeccable logic, Andy continues: ergo it is not a character flaw
to be lazy, because being lazy creates value.
I suspect that Andy’s submission was meant as a polemic against Marx. Andy thinks
Marx developed the labor theory of value to support workers, i.e., Andy makes the error
I tried to explain in [62]. And Andy tries to show us where one ends up if one supports
workers, namely, one ends up supporting laziness. In that respect it was a masterful and
quite funny “immanent critique,” i.e., Andy criticizes Marx’s pro-working-class stance by
pointing out the inner contradictions of such a point of view.
Next Message by Hans is [64].
Question 96 is 54 in 1997WI, 53 in 1997ut, 68 in 2001fa, 81 in 2005fa, and 120 in 2011fa:
Question 96 How can labor-time be the measure of value, of a social quantity, if it seems
the private matter of the producer whether he or she spends much or little time, and others
may not even know?
[315] Jason: Even though Labor time is defined as the amount of time and effort that
went into making a product, according to Marx that is not exactly the measure a society
typically uses. Once there is a large enough market for an item, and in a fairly large society
that doesn’t take too much time at all, a socially acceptable amount of labor time arises.
This is usually an average amount of time that it takes to make the product. Since all the
competitors making this product do it independently, they have to make their products as
quickly as everyone else or risk losing money for how much labor they inputted. The value
of the product is therefore determined not by the labor time put into each individual product,
but by the social average labor time put into that type of product.
If a private producer discovered a more efficient method for creating a product, this would
eventually lead to a socially acceptable labor time that is less. This would require all the
other producers to either adapt this new technology or some other more efficient method.
Otherwise their product would be overpriced and consumers would opt to go for the cheaper
alternative.
Next Message by Jason is [318].
[327] Papageorgio: Commodity production. Let me start with a quote from [2001fa:169-
4], “In a capitalist society, laziness and thoroughness may have the same reward when judged
against the standard of socially necessary labor.” In a market system this question can arise
with some difficulties. Marx feels that the labor someone puts in, for example the hand
weavers in the example in our reading, is judged according to the socially necessary labor

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 43
time. Not per se an average of the times but the socially necessary labor time, which is the
time of the new, or faster way, which in our reading was the power loom. So as we can
see value is determined by the social necessary labor time, such as the power loom, not the
individual’s labor time. It is important to note as Marx did that the concrete labor is not
what is giving the product its value but the abstract labor. The brain, muscle, nerves, are all
working on the project each contributing, but just because someone is working longer does
not mean their product is better, especially if I can create a similar product or subsitute for
less time. I also now that I relook over the question enjoy the part that says, “others may not
even know.” This is also evidence that well frankly when I go to the store I do not know who
put the most time in the product Pepsi, or Coca Cola, and therefore it does not affect my
decision. What if Coke was able to find an innovative way to create their beverage with less
time than Pepsi but told no one and just started charging less because they were able to do
so with their innovation, Pepsi would see the price dropping and would need to follow suit.
This made a lot of sense in my head I hope I wrote it out right there. Marx and our readings
definetly help us to realize once again that it is abstract labor that plays a part in the value
here not necessarily the concrete labor.
Next Message by Papageorgio is [487].
[329] Khwai: graded A Labor-time as a measure of value. Labor-time is one of the
few quantitative measures we have to measure the abstract human labor contained within a
commodity and the social relationship between laborers, commodities, and consumers when
an exchange takes place. We are faced with a dilemma in measuring labor-time as all laborers
are not equally efficient. If a highly efficient laborer were to create a table in less
time than an average worker who in turn creates the table in less time than an inefficient
worker how would we quantify the labor-time used in creation of the three tables and their
value? In 129:2 Marx acknowledges that some may think using labor-time to quantify value
rewards the inefficient worker. He continues to clarify that the labor and labor-time we are
considering is in fact “equal human labor, expenditure of the same human labor-power”.
Hans continues further in [42] as the labor-time we are measuring is the “socially necessary
labor-time” or “labor-time necessary the time which this product would take under the average
conditions and with up-to-date technology.” Therefore the labor value contained in all
three tables would be equal even though the amount of time expended by all three laborers
in creating it would not – because we are in fact measuring the socially necessary labor-time
and not the number of minutes or hours an individual worker needs to create a table.
Throughout his writings Marx stresses the importance of looking at the social relationships
between individuals as opposed to the individuals themselves. Labor-time is a socially
necessary quantity as all value is created by labor or in other words price is not set, as the
capitalist would argue, by the use-value a consumer places on an object but by the labor
value contained within. Although others within society may not know the exact amount of
time invested in creating a single table, they will know the social standard of the necessary
labor-time and hence the labor value of said table. In our example of the three workers the
efficient worker is exerting more labor power per unit of time when compared to the less
efficient workers. As others adapt and become equally efficient via improved technique or
technology the socially necessary labor-time to create a table and the labor-value contained

44 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
within the table is redefined allowing labor-time to be a continually valid measure of value
within society.
Hans: Knowledge about labor time also seeps into the market through the pricing behavior. If your competitor
offers the good at a price which would bankrupt you, then you know he has figured out a cheaper way to produce
it.
Next Message by Khwai is [338].
[331] Spawnblade: Labor time can be the measure of value in a very simple manner.
Society doesn’t measure the value of the product by the labor-time of the individual, but by
the socially necessary labor-time. Taken from this perspective, there are two scenarios.
Scenario A: Worker spends four hours mowing his client’s lawn. In this situation the
client knows how long he is spending, and if he is paying him by the hour he is sure to
find someone who will do it in less time. This means the worker will most likely adjust
his time to try and be on a competitive level. Thereby conforming to the socially necessary
labor-time.
Scenario B: Potter John spends four hours on a cup that takes other potters two hours.
Because he spent four hours on it, he himself charges $45 for his work. However Potter
Steve across the street (Due to the consistent assumption in Capitalism that the market is
perfectly competitive) completed two of his cups in four hours. Potter Steve will either sell
his for the amount of time he spent, assuming he feels that his labor time is the equivalent per
hour of Johns, in which case he’d have two cups for $22.50, or he’ll undercut him slightly
so he’ll barely be ahead of John. However John will then undercut in order to actually sell
his cup, and this spiral will continue until they reach the level where they feel they will not
go below in selling their wares.
In this manner labor-time becomes the measure of value because people are forced to
work faster and harder in order to compete with others, until they reach a point where they
are unable to go faster or harder. And then what they are left with is the value. This is the
basic structure which leads to the lowering of value for an increased production, thereby
further lowering the value. But alas I am beginning to go in circles now.
Hans: This is the right answer. In your second paragraph, there is not a race to some “reservation price” or to zero
markup over cost, but where the markup is similar to what is available in other industries.
Next Message by Spawnblade is [334].
[366] Andy: In Class answer:
Labor time can be the measure of value for an individual because the individual knows
how much time he or she spent on it therefore making its value different for each individual.
But in a social quality it differs because humans are capable of doing similar things. For
instance I may be able to finish making a blanket faster than another guy, making our own
measure of value different, but in the social aspect the value is the same because we both
produced blankets that provided people with the same thing.
Response answer:
Social labor time indicates that it is not identical to the labor-time actually used. Labortime
that is measured in a social quantity forces everyone to hurry up because everyone has
to meet some minimum standards, causing everyone to be like everyone else, preventing

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 45
individual unique contributions from being recognized. However, instead of forcing everybody
to work like everybody else, the goal must be to elicit the unique contributions. So
value can be created by the uniqueness of the product, not just the matter of how much time
was put into it.
Next Message by Andy is [368].
[407] SnatchimusMaximus: content B+ late penalty 1% Society’s process of assigning
value to goods and services consequently establishes socially accepted norms pertaining to
quality. Thus value becomes the reified expression of society’s expectations. Ultimately,
labor-time imputes only as much value as utility that is added. Hence, value is derived from
the quality of labor rather than the quantity of labor. Norms become king in a social context
and the quantity of labor-time contributions becomes subjugated to society’s expectations of
value.
Hans: It is not part of Marx’s theory that “ultimately, labor-time imputes only as much value as utility that is
added.” Neoclassical economics says that, but not Marx. Marx says that the utility of a thing determines how much
is produced, and the cost of a thing to society (labor) ultimately determines its price.
Individual producers try to escape this iron bond between price and labor-time by finding that niche, that quality
of labor which is rewarded more by the market. Marx says that these efforts to beat the law of value end up enforcing
it. See Rey’s [211] about this.
Next Message by SnatchimusMaximus is [409].
Question 98 is 83 in 2005fa, 96 in 2007SP, 96 in 2008fa, and 103 in 2010fa:
Question 98 The value of the product is determined by the socially necessary labor-time.
What are the implications of this for a capitalist supervising his employees?
[61] Jenn: graded B Marx defines the “value” of a commodity as how much labor was
used in the production of the commodity. To clarify, Marx’s definition of value differs from
that of neoclassical economics. “Value” according to neoclassical economics would most
likely be associated with the price of the commodity based on the law of supply and demand
rather than the labor-time.
Hans: Marx’s concept of value is definitely associated with the price of the commodity. The difference between
Marx and Neoclassical economics is that Marx says that the long run price (i.e., what he calls ”value”) is determined
by labor content, while neoclassical economics says it is determined by demand and supply. As I said in [62], for
Marx the long run supply curve is horizontal.
Using Marx’s definition of value, this would obviously imply that a capitalist would want
their employee’s labor-time to be lower than the socially necessary labor time. This is the
essence of a capitalist model. The natural response of the capitalist supervisor would be
to encourage (or in some cases force) the employees to produce more in less time. On
the surface, it appears this could be accomplished by requiring employees to work longer
hours for the same pay. Upon further examination however, one might notice a decrease in
efficiency or quality as a result of these longer hours. One might argue that the capitalist
might not achieve a labor-time any lower than the “socially necessary labor-time,” but may
cause greater social harm through the methods they used in their futile attempt to achieve
their goal.
Next Message by Jenn is [120].

46 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 107 is 45 in 1995WI, 54 in 1995ut, 56 in 1996sp, 60 in 1997WI, 63 in 1997sp, 59
in 1997ut, 79 in 2002fa, 81 in 2003fa, 90 in 2005fa, 104 in 2007SP, 105 in 2008fa, 112
in 2010fa, and 131 in 2012fa:
Question 107 How is the value of raw materials determined in Marx’s theory? How does
the scarcity of these materials influence their value? Is Marx’s argument still valid in the
case of an exhaustible resource, which is present only in finite supply?
[47] Gerund: Raw Materials. In Marx’s theory, the value of raw materials is determined
by the labor-time required to find them and extract them from the earth. This would include
the labor necessary to break them into a saleable form. For example, copper when extracted
from the earth is encrusted with other useless rock, and has to be removed from the other
rock. Copper has no use-value until this step is completed.
Scarce materials take a great deal more labor to find, and typically when found the desired
material to useless rock ratio is much worse, so they take more labor to break into saleable
form.
Hans: What about exhaustible resources?
Next Message by Gerund is [48].
[56] Samantha: Sweat and Tears is what should raise the price. The value of raw
materials, as mentioned by Gerund, is the labor-time required by the workers who must labor
to discover and extract them. The scarcity of these materials according to Marx should only
matter in the way that this may require workers to work harder in order to find and produce
them, so instead of pricing the resources based on scarcity they would be priced based on
the difficulty of the labor of the worker. The exhaustible resource would not change in Marx
theory, it isn’t that it’s a material that makes it valuable in his mind, it is valuable because
people toiled to find, remove and labor with it.
Message [56] referenced by [62]. Next Message by Samantha is [215].
[62] Hans: Important, please read. Samantha [56] thinks that the labor theory of value
represents Marx’s idea how prices should be determined. This is a basic misunderstanding.
Please take the time to understand this, this is important. Marx thinks that in a capitalist
society prices are determined by labor content. The reason is simple: labor costs are the
only costs which society has to bear; everything else is free. Nature does not charge for the
useful properties of steel or oil or fish in the ocean. This is why the market value of these
things is determined by the labor necessary to extract them from the earth and not by some
intrinsic value of the materials themselves. And when Marx uses the word “value” he means
the market value, i.e., the center of gravity where prices settle down in the long run.
How does this differ from the determination of prices by supply and demand? Marx
does not believe that the long run supply curve is upward sloping. If more of a commodity
is needed, then more will be produced, without an increase in prices. In other words, the
supply curve is horizontal. The location of the demand curve therefore only determines how
much is produced, but not the price.
We all know that Marx is critical of capitalism and says that the workers in capitalism
are exploited. How does this fit together with his theory that capitalist prices are determined
by labor content? Here one has to distinguish between the value the workers create through
their labor and the value the workers get for their labor (i.e., their wages). Although labor

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 47
creates all value, the laborer in capitalism does not get paid an equivalent of the value he or
she produces, but a much smaller amount, just enough for them to pay their bills until the
next paycheck. The capitalists get the rest, because they control the means of production.
Message [62] referenced by [61], [63], [67], [166], [174], [199], and [495]. Next Message by Hans is [63].
Question 121 is 124 in 2009fa and 127 in 2010fa:
Question 121 Marx says in 133:1 that it does not matter for the use-value of the coat
whether it is worn by the tailor or by someone else. Is this correct for every use-value?
If you write a computer program for yourself then you often obey different principles than if
you write it for others to use. A program which “works for me” is often poorly documented
and does not consider all the possible situations which different users of the program might
find themselves in.
[59] Matt: Use-value, produced for one’s self. If something is produced it should have
a use-value otherwise it would not be produced in the first place. Marx says a coat produced
has a use-value whether or not the person who consumes the coat has also produced it.
Even if the coat is self-consumed by the producer and it does not technically have a trade
“value”, it still has a purpose. Therefore, I personally believe that if something produced has
a purpose it should indeed have a use-value. In this case there is a value to the producer of
the coat since it keeps him warm from the cold. As Marx says, it makes no difference to the
coat whether it’s worn by the producer or a customer.
Another example would be if I had eyeglasses produced just for my eyes. Even though
I am the only person that can use them they still have a use-value since they help me see.
And since I am able to see I can be a productive individual in the workforce. So, as long
as something has a useful purpose, whether it’s by the producer or by the consumer, it will
always have a use-value.
Hans: The question was not whether the coat is a use-value, but whether the specialization of the producer is one
of the basic requirements of production. Please look at the context of these questions in Marx’s text when you
attempt to answer them.
Next Message by Matt is [94].
[64] Hans: The Free Software Movement. I added this question because the Free Software
Movement is an important evolution of society-wide co-operation which has important
implications for our ideas of socialism. Computer programmers are systematically sharing
their programs so that they do not have to re-invent the wheel, and they are skillfully using
copyright laws, or, as they call it, “copyleft”, the Gnu Public License (GPL), to keep their
work public and to prevent its privatization.
Millions of programmers work together world wide without boss and without coercion.
They build incredibly complex systems, and the quality of their product is so high that the
biggest commercial software vendors have difficulies keeping up with them. This is the
proof that high complexity wants to be organized democratically, not in the hierarchical and
secretive structure preferred by capitalist businesses.
In a development which Marx did not anticipate, use-values gain an important social dimension.
These software systems must be engineered from the beginning to be modular and

48 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
extensible, and the individual components must have a clean enough structure that someone
who did not write them can still understand them and adapt them to evolving needs.
These programmers produce code, not coats. But the code which someone would write
for their own use, to solve a specific problem, is quite different than the code which would
be acceptable by one of the big software projects, be it apache or firefox, the linux kernel, or
even the much smaller code base for the mailman mailing list manager used in this class.
I.e., this is an example where the use-value is quite different if you produce something
for yourself than if you contribute it to one of the versatile applications which everybody
can download and install on their computers. Participation in such free software projects has
created a completely new culture, in which everybody is acutely aware whenever they write
a line of code that they are not alone, but that this is just one link in a big system, much more
powerful than any individual could ever conceive by themselves.
Had Marx witnessed this, he would probably have used it as additional evidence against
rigid division of labor and specialization. If thousands co-operate, even if they work on the
project only a few hours every week, they can achieve much more than one person who is
forced to specialize on the same thing 24/7.
Message [64] referenced by [68], [72], [73], [139], [2009fa:31], and [2009fa:41]. Next Message by Hans is [67].
[68] Brandon: graded A Free software great, but not always. There is no doubt that
free-software has progressed the use-value of the electronic age. Instead of relying on the
lone genius to formulate a solution to a general problem, regardless of how unimportant, individuals
are given free access to express and contribute to a joint effort by other individuals
to solve said problem. Hans stated in [64]:
“They build incredibly complex systems, and the quality of their product
is so high that the biggest commercial software vendors have difficulies
keeping up with them. This is the proof that high complexity wants to
be organized democratically, not in the hierarchical and secretive structure
preferred by capitalist businesses.”
While I do not disagree with this statement, I believe this statement gives too much credit
to free-software as being a better alternative to priced software. I’d like to use the example
of the wiki software (wikipedia.org); that being a client-side software in which any user may
write, contribute, and/or link any article regarding any topic, without proper fact checking
implements installed. While its intentions are that there is not one consensus of ideas, but
rather a collection of different viewpoints to create a more accurate database of ideas, there
are many inherent problems with the software. Often, there are not enough relevant or
credible sources contributing to articles thereby causing the articles themselves to not be
credible sources of information.
While the wiki is a good source for ‘quick information or reference’, it lacks a hierarchical
structure that allows for proper fact checking which in turn prevents it from becoming a
credible software for users. It is my belief that this causes its use-value to be less than, say,
the use-value of an online database like Britannica would have. They both perform the same
functions: a user types in a keyword about, for example, forks and is redirecting to an article
describing the history, function, etymology, etc about forks. However, the user knows that

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 49
the information collected from the wiki software is less credible than that of Britannica. The
user cannot cite wikipedia in a paper he/she is writing about forks, therefore reducing the
use-value of the wiki software.
“Had Marx witnessed this, he would probably have used it as additional
evidence against rigid division of labor and specialization. If thousands cooperate,
even if they work on the project only a fewhours every week, they
can achieve much more than one person who is forced to specialize on the
same thing 24/7.” (Hans, [64] )
I agree with this statement completely. It is arrogant presumption that a select few can
produce a greater tool to fit the needs of a society rather than the collection of ideas and
experiences of a society. However, I do believe that there still must be a form of checks and
balances that do not allow for this cooperation to inadvertanly diminish the use-value of the
product, as in the case of the wiki software.
Message [68] referenced by [70], [72], and [73]. Next Message by Brandon is [128].
[70] Hans: Accuracy of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an excellent example of non-hierarchical
co-operation, which few people would have expected to work, but which nevertheless is doing
amazingly well. There is a big scientific debate regarding the accuracy of Wikipedia. The
most famous article about it is a 2005 study by Nature which says that, although Wikipedia
is not quite as good as Encyclopedia Britannica, it is certainly in the same league.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
If Brandon says in [68] that one should not cite Wikipedia, this is not an argument against
Wikipedia per se but is true for any encyclopedia article. Of course, there have been attempts
to abuse the Wikipedia model, a model which seems to invite abuse, and Wikipedia had to
put some safeguards in place. But the dire predictions that the abuse would swamp the good
energy coming from unrestrained co-operation have not materialized.
Brandon’s objections are thoughtful and valid, but I think they are issues which Wikipedia
is trying to work on and which can in principle be resolved. It is difficult to say whether any
given problem is a wrinkle which can be ironed out or whether it signals a basic flaw of
the model. We are not used to this new non-hierarchical model, we are just starting to gain
experiences with it and to address its specific pitfalls. Therefore I am inclined to give it a lot
of credit. Wikipedia is one of the, if not the, single most used reference site on the web, and
my own experiences have been generally positive.
Next Message by Hans is [71].
[72] Lev: Free software, Free Society. By way of introduction to this topic I have been
an administrator of free and open-source software (FOSS) systems for some years now. I am
currently the public officer for Linux User Victoria (cf., www.luv.org.au), and work for the
Victorian Partnership for Advanced Computing (cf., www.vpac.org) whose machines have
been among the most powerful in the world (cf., www.top500.org). I also contribute quite
regularly to Wikipedia.
If I may first respond to Brandon’s comments [68], Wikipedia does have a hierarchial
structure with multiple levels of editors. It does have a dispute resolution process, it does

50 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
have fact-checking (note the “citation needed” tags), it does have internal debates, and so
forth. When compared to a commercial product, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, it
compares quite well. An article in Nature in 2005 reviewing science articles showed that
Wikipedia was “not quite” as accurate as Britannica, but certainly within the same ballpark
figure - this is particularly important to consider that Britannica has been produced
encyclopedia material since 1768, has 19 full-time editors and 4,000 expert contributors. In
contrast Wikipedia was launched a mere seven years ago and has 1400 administrators.
The free and open-content policy of Wikipedia does mean that it is prone to vandalism,
trolling, advertising and so forth, but these are usually of a short-term nature.
Now if I may respond to Hans’ comments [64] on the same subject I must at first concur
with his noting of the widespread use of free and open-source software. Most websites
are build on a combination of a FOSS operating systems (such as Linux, FreeBSD etc) and
FOSS webservers (over 65% use Apache for example). Supercomputers, clusters, grid computing
and scientific applications almost invariably use FOSS systems. Heck, this mailing
list is entirely generated on FOSS software.
Nevertheless it is somewhat idealised to suggest that FOSS projects are a community
of disparate programmers working together “without boss and without coercion”. A great
deal of FOSS development occurs within a standard capitalist environment or, is sponsored
through educational institutions funded by public monies. They have timetables, they have
bosses, they have a all the trappings and behaviour of a standard capitalist enterprise.
A critical difference is that it just works better. With particular levels of complexity monopolisation
of knowledge retards future development. FOSS is able to bypass this problem
and because the material is sufficiently complex to begin with, any potential monopoly profits
lost to an individual firm by making it open source are less than the potential gains made
by inviting extra expertise to assist with the project.
As a closing note I highly recommend Richard Stallman’s collection of essays on the Free
Software movement. It is available (freely of course) at the following:
Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman
http://notabug.com/2002/rms-essays.pdf
Message [72] referenced by [76]. Next Message by Lev is [83].
[73] Mitternacht: graded A Open source - left? As an open source hobbyist I was
excited to see a question related to this topic. Hans’ message [64] mentioned the “copyleft”
Gnu Public License to keep code public and not privatized. Prior to this I had not given much
consideration to some of the larger socio-economic issues surrounding open source software.
I had simply viewed open source software as an alternative to private software which has
been force fed to so many of us. Open source software allows for more collaboration and
input which lends itself to meeting the needs of a larger group of people as well as creating
a higher quality product - I particularly liked Brandon’s [68] statement on this subject: “it
is an arrogant presumption that a select few can produce a greater tool to fit the needs of a
society rather than a collection of ideas and experiences of a society.”

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 51
The open source movement has gained a lot of steam over the last few years - companies
like Dell are even selling PCs with Linux operating systems pre-installed, but not everyone
is jumping on the bandwagon. There are many software companies that stand to lose and are
losing a lot of money to the open source movement. There is even a right wing think tank
called the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute which dedicates a lot of its time to discrediting
open source software, in particular Linux. In an article by the group’s founder, Ken Brown,
titled “Intellectual Property - Left?” (http://www.adti.net/ip/laches.050405.pdf) allegations
are made that open source programmers engage in all sorts of nefarious activities such as
stealing source code (“intellectual property”) to create their software. What is not mentioned
on anywhere on the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute’s website is that most of its funding
comes from very large private businesses, particularly of note is Microsoft.
Marx states that it is not necessary for someone to be specialized in the production of
a particular commodity in order for the commodity to be produced, and that the relation
between said commodity and the labour that produced it doesn’t change when production of
the commodity becomes specialized. The quality of the commodity is not brought into the
equation in the particular case presented by Marx - obviously a coat made by a tailor would
be of much higher quality than a coat produced by “humans who tailored thousands of years
before anyone became a tailor”, but the end result was still a coat nonetheless. The same
reasoning extends to writing a computer program - obviously the software produced will
be of greater use and more efficient if produced by group of people specialized in writing
software code, but software produced by a neophyte programmer is still software.
Hans: I am glad that you are bringing the discussion back to Marx’s text. You are right, the coat may be of a
greater quality if the tailor has to specialize his whole life on coats. But perhaps society wants to forego this last bit
of efficiency if it means the crippling of its laborers. Instead of specializing individual laborers, much more mileage
can be gained by innovative modes of co-operation involving large numbers of laborers.
Next Message by Mitternacht is [137].
[76] Hans: Hierarchy. In response to Lev’s [72] that FOSS projects do have bosses,
I agree that there is leadership in the FOSS movement. But this leadership is based on
authority which the leaders have earned in the co-operation itself, instead of being imposed
by an outside structure. Marx writes in chapter Thirteen, 450:1/o:
It is not because he is a leader of industry that a man is a capitalist; on the
contrary, he is a leader of industry because he is a capitalist.
and a page earlier, in 449:1/o he calls the authority of the capitalist the power of an alien
will. This is an important criticism of the capitalist’s leadership role. Something like this
has very practical implications; one of the unexpected benefits when Netscape opened up
the code for its browser was that they were able to hire the best programmers.
Another issue related to all this is the One Laptop per Child project, a wonderful project
designed to help children in the poor countries, which in my view is also very revolutionary.
Little surprise that it has been shamefully undercut by Microsoft and Intel. Here is a good
in-depth presentation about their goals and their technology:
http://www.olpctalks.com/ivan krsti/ivan krstic at google.html

52 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
We could continue talking about FOSS for a long time. But if you want to make additional
comments, they must be under question 888, and they will be counted as general discussion,
not as homework answers. We have to move on, there is a lot more interesting stuff in Marx.
Message [76] referenced by [83]. Next Message by Hans is [82].
[83] Lev: Hierarchy. In response to Hans [76] I feel that you misunderstand me. I have
no confusion between the difference between leadership, hierarchy and capitalist ownership
of the means of production. Yes, it is true, a significant amount of FOSS is produced in
an environment where there is a hierarchy but no capitalists, in the manner you describe.
However, it is false to suggest that all FOSS projects are like this. Indeed, it would be an
interesting excersise to see what proportion actually are carried out as free coooperation and
what are carried out as capitalist enterprises.
Take for example, OpenOffice.org which began with Sun Microsystems released its code
to the community. Significant contributions to that code are now provided by Novell. Similar
comments can be made concerning Novell’s Evolution, a person information manager and
mail-client or their distribution of Linux (SuSE).
Whilst the formal structure of these projects is of the nature of a free and cooperative
system with a democratic hierarchy (indeed more often by the person who puts their hand
up), a great deal of the contribution is made, as I said, in a formal capitalist environment.
In a owner and worker environment (mediated by managers) the capitalist tells the worker
to write the code, the capitalist sets the timetable, and the worker receives payment for their
wage labour in return.
Now one may ask why a capitalist would pay a worker to contribute to an freee and opensource
project when they do not receive direct compensation for this? The general answer
is for market share - it is Novell’s interests (for example) that more people use Evolution,
OpenOffice and SuSE Linux than Outlook, Microsoft Office and MS-Windows. Despite the
fact they have given the product away, despite the fact the source is free and open, they can
claim expertise and receive the consultant dollars when asked questions of implementing the
software in a large corporate environment, train staff and so forth.
Again these actions occur in a standard capitalist fashion; the worker is actually the one
who provides the knowledge, communicates their knowledge, trains the staff and receives
wage compensation under the timetable set by the capitalists’ proxy, management. However,
this is conduced under the title of the enterprise, and a portion of their work is expropriated
from the capitalist as profit.
Hans: Thank you for the clarification. Point well taken.
First Message by Lev is [7].
Question 127 is 55 in 1995WI, 66 in 1996ut, 69 in 1997ut, 86 in 2000fa, 93 in 2002fa,
121 in 2007SP, and 125 in 2008fa:
Question 127 Saying that labor is the source of all wealth seems a pro-worker stance. In
[mecw24]81:2, Marx argues on the contrary that the assertion that labor is the only source
of use-values is a pro-capitalist and anti-worker ideology. Can you guess, without going to
Marx’s text, how that can be the case?

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 53
[66] Sparky: Labor as a source of wealth is a true statement when concerning the worker
and avoiding inputs such as nature which provides the resources of the product, and it would
be easy to see why that statement could be seen as a pro-worker statement, as JT said in
[2007SP:86]: “it emphasizes the importance of the laborer as the only source of use-value”.
But while it is the worker that is creating value, he is not necessarily the owner of the goods.
An example would be an autoworker, he goes to work and helps create a car, but creating a
car and owning a car are very different things, the worker did not purchase the steel, rubber,
bolts, etc. that went in to the car, nor did he own the machines he used to create the car
– the car company did, and they owned all the paperwork, the title, receipts of all items
needed to build the car, and the car worker’s pay stub proving that they paid the auto worker
the worth that he created, which is a worth they, the capitialist, has said that he made –
while giving him a half decent wage they are still exploiting the value he has created. That
is why the stance of labor is the source of all wealth is a pro-capitalist and anti-worker
ideology, the capitalist controls the means of production, the means of the laborer if you will
– that worker could not have made that car all by himself, he did not have the means or the
resources to build a complete working car that could be sold. The capitalist is controlling
the production of goods, and this example is a limited one, I have chosen a field of products
that is mass produced and mass advertised and is very hard for small companies to get a
part of, an example is electric car companies which are having a very hard time breaking
into the whole US market, which contains many regulations on the means of production –
controlling pollution from the production of the car, and the regulation of the final product –
such as smog emissions and safety.
Hans: Your example shows very well that a modern production process contains many ingredients other than labor:
not only means of production, also legal and accounting issues, pollution control, etc. Since the capitalists hire the
laborers one by one, they treat them like children and usurp the laborers’ social connections for their own benefit.
The laborers should unite in solidarity and tell the capitalists that they are society, they are the immense majority,
and they have the right to run their own affairs.
You have a lot to say but your sentence structure is pretty awful; you have to work on this.
Message [66] referenced by [519]. Next Message by Sparky is [114].
[67] Hans: Wealth and Labor. In answering this question you have to distinguish between
two statements:
(1) labor is the only source of value – right
(2) labor is the only source of wealth – wrong
“Value” is here, as always, commodity value, i.e., “labor is the only source of value”
means: prices are determined by labor content. This is the basic assertion of the labor theory
of value. According to this theory, profits only exist because the workers do not receive a
full equivalent for the labor they perform.
“Labor is the only source of wealth” is not true because you always need two factors to
produce wealth: labor and natural resources.
To say it again, nature does not produce value, because it does not charge for its services
as I said in [62]. But nature does produce use-value, it plays an indispensible part in the
production of any use-value.

54 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
If you say that labor is the only source of wealth you pretend that labor could produce
wealth without nature. Labor cannot. It is exactly the secret of the wealth of the capitalists
that they control the means of production and therefore the laborer. Instead, labor should
have access to means of production and natural resources as a matter of right. As CousinIt
said in [65], private property of means of production is a crime against humanity.
Message [67] referenced by [238]. Next Message by Hans is [70].
[238] Kevin: graded A– Wealth is free. Saying labor is the source of all wealth is a procapitalist
statement even though it may appear otherwise. To say this suggests that if one
labors hard enough, one will become wealthy. This is not the case. This mentality or way of
thinking is a way to ensure the continued effort of the laborer without adequate reward for
his labor, thus keeping him exploited to the fullest by capitalism itself. Labor is not the only
source of wealth, or use-value. Use-value comes from the usefulness of a commodity which
may or may not involve labor. Nature produces much with use-value that requires no labor
at all.
Hans: Your argument needs two more steps to be complete:
(a) not only nature but also produced means of production are necessary for every production process.
(b) both natural resources and the means of production are owned by the capitalists.
Therefore if you say “labor is the only source of wealth” you ignore the role of the resources owned by the
capitalists. It is the secret of capitalist wealth that they, and not the workers, control some essential ingredients of
the production process. By “overlooking” these ingredients you keep it a secret and therefore help the capitalists. I
tried to say the same thing in the very last paragraph of [67]; see also JT’s [2007SP:86].
Next Message by Kevin is [239].
[345] Brody: In a capitalist society, labor, and therefore the worker, is exploited. In a
capitalist based society use-value of a commodity does not determine price: rather price is
determined by demand. If demand rises then price follows suit. The worker does not gain
from the change in exchange-value of a commodity.
By price, exchange value is meant since I find the two to be one and the same if you look
at money as a commodity or even use the exchange value to determine what two objects are
worth.
Hans: Look at my [23].
Next Message by Brody is [367].
[350] Ryoung: Is Labor Bought. I believe that Marx argued this because in a capitalist
society those that are rich or wealthy are believed to have had everything handed to them
and all those that labor are laboring to make the rich even richer. The rich don’t like to
labor, therefore they choose to buy labor to make them wealthier. In a capitalist society
those that labor are lower class, and this is why I believe Marx believed that use values are
an anti-worker ideology.
Hans: The rich can only “choose to buy labor” and get even richer by it because they control the means of production.
The laborers are “lower class” only because they are separated from the means of production. Saying that
labor creates all wealth denies that means of production are necessary and therefore keeps it a mystery why those
who control the means of production are so rich.
Next Message by Ryoung is [351].
[381] Clayon: Marx argues that “the assertion that labor is the only source of wealth is
pro-capitalist and anti-worker ideology.” He says capitalism does not break down the value
of a good sufficiently, and therefore the laborer does not receive the proper pay he deserves
while the Capitalist boss walks away with a profit.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 55
Marx notes that a good has a use value, which is the use the good provides to people, as
well as a value which is a direct by-product of the labor required to produce the commodity.
Thus the worker receives full wages according to his labor input.
Marx states that “any body of a commodity is a combination of two elements – matter and
labor.” To say that labor is the only source of wealth is inaccurate. Marx states that “labor
is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use-values as labor.” To
say otherwise robs nature of her labor to produce the raw material.
Hans: Marx does emphatically not say that the worker gets full wages. The labor-theory of value does not imply
that the worker gets full wages. Wages will be discussed in chapter Six.
The gifts of nature are free; society does not have to pay for them. This does not mean nature cannot be robbed.
But we do it at our peril, as we are experiencing with the climate catastrophe we triggered by us.
Next Message by Clayon is [387].
Question 145 is 86 in 1998WI, 93 in 1999SP, 98 in 2000fa, 98 in 2001fa, 138 in 2007SP,
141 in 2007fa, 143 in 2008fa, 150 in 2009fa, 155 in 2010fa, and 174 in 2012fa:
Question 145 If the first chapter is such a systematic discussion of value, why is it then
called “Commodities” and not “Value”?
[95] Slash: commodity vs. Value. Marx chose to title the first chapter “commodity,”
because commodity comes with a qualifier that value does not. Value can be broken into
two groups: Exchange value and use value. Exchange value is dependent upon the item first
being a commodity. A commodity implies ownership, without having ownership of an item
one cannot trade or exchange it, this doesn’t mean the item is without value, but rather that
the item is not yet a commodity. For example an acre of land has value, people can grow
wheat to eat, or simply find use value in standing in it, but if there is no ownership then the
acre of land is only valued by those occupying, or cultivating it. This kind of value without
ownership is use value. Jenna [2007SP:128] talked about a coat and the inherent use value
(heating humans). But the demands of ownership make the coat a commodity.
When a person claims water, bottles it and then sells the water it becomes a commodity.
The fact that someone claimed and bottled the water doesn’t change the life saving use value
of water, but rather turns the water into a commodity, which then has an exchange value, and
therefore has value in a commodity market. It is because of this distinction in the term value
that Marx chose to be more specific and say commodity.
Hans: Slash asked me to count his reference to Jenna for his feedback requirement. Unfortunately it is not the
kind of detailed feedback I am looking for. Slash is building on Jenna’s submission, this is always good and
even required. Slash also adopts one of Jenna’s errors as I explain in [113]. Feedback means either correcting or
clarifying, somehow making the previous submission better. I don’t have the impression that Slash tries to do that.
Message [95] referenced by [96] and [113]. Next Message by Slash is [118].
[96] Scott: Commodities turn into Value. Marx states “The wealth of those societies in
which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as ’an immense accumulation
of commodities.’” Knowing this it’s important to understand exactly what a commodity
is. Anything that has purpose or useful is considered a commodity. For example paper, food,
iron, etc., are considered commodities because they can satisfy human needs and wants. I
agree with Slash [95] when he says “a commodity implies ownership, without having ownership
of an item one cannot trade or exchange it, this doesn’t mean the item is without value,
but rather that the item is not yet a commodity.” This is why Marx calls his first chapter

56 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
“Commodity” because you first need to claim something as your commodity, make it productive
so you can trade it, and it then has value or “exchange value”. For example if I lived
on a farm, to make my many commodities such as corn and animals have value I would need
to make them satisfy a human need or want. This is why societies prevail is because of their
“immense accumulation of commodities” that they turn into value.
Hans: Not every use-value is a commodity (as Marx uses the term), but only those use-values which are produced
for exchange. You are therefore working with a different definition of a commodity than Marx. You are also saying
that the echange-value of a commodity comes from its use-value, while Marx is very careful to keep them separate.
I recommend that you attend the class sessions, because I always verbally explain the main elements of Marx’s
theory.
Next Message by Scott is [177].
[113] Hans: Two Clarifications. Slash [95] shows a couple of misunderstanings which
I’d like to clarify here.
(1) Slash says that an object without ownership is only a use-value, but if there is ownership
then it becomes also an exchange-value. Slash refers here to Jenna [2007SP:128] who
indeed said:
In a primitive society which does not recognize ownership of property, a
coat may exist as a physical thing. It will have use value – that of warmth
it provides to humans. Yet, in this society, the coat is not a commodity
because it is not exchangeable.
The passage in italics is not quite right. Even if the coat is not a commodity (because
everybody produces their own garments, and they would never dream of wearing something
produced by someone else) there is still ownership of coats. This coat here is your coat, and
nobody else in society has the right to wear it. The same society may have the rule that food
is always to be distributed to everybody present, nobody should be hungry if others have to
eat. There is an infinite variety of possible ownership relations, ownership and exchange are
not one and the same thing.
It is important to keep this in mind when you read things like CousinIt’s provocative
statement in [65] that private property of means of production is a crime against humanity.
CousinIt does not say here that means of production should be free for the taker. Rather that
only those who work the means of production should be the owners. If some other private
person, who is not one of the workers, has property rights over means of production, this is
as artificial and restrictive as someone else other than you owning the coat you are wearing.
(2) Slash says that water becomes an exchange-value by someone claiming it and selling
it. And this is indeed how CousinIt described it in [65]. But CousinIt’s description was not
to be taken literally, it was a fable. CousinIt meant to say: a society which conveys private
ownership rights to natural resources (which should belong to everyone) is comparable
to some primitive people fencing off a watering hole and declaring that they own it now.
CousinIt wanted to convey how outrageous those property relations are which we all take
for granted. Also in Marx’s case it is important to understand that he is much more critical of
the social relations than of the individuals playing the various roles in capitalist society. You
cannot have a seller of water without first having a society in which water is a commodity.
And we should be critical of these social relations, not the individuals.

Message [113] referenced by [95]. Next Message by Hans is [119].
U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 57
Question 156 is 66 in 1995WI, 75 in 1995ut, 79 in 1996sp, 85 in 1997WI, 87 in 1997sp, 83
in 1997ut, 113 in 2002fa, 116 in 2003fa, 131 in 2005fa, and 150 in 2007fa:
Question 156 Why can commodities not express their values in their own use-values? (Note
that we are not asking here why the value of a commodity is not determined by its use-value.
The expression of value is not the same as the determination of value.)
[85] Jason: Use-Value and Value of a Commodity. Commodities cannot express their
values in their own use-values for a few reasons. For one, as stated in an earlier reading,
their value is determined at least in part by the labor time that went into them. They are
worth how much average societal labor time is put into making them. They have a value that
is gained independently from how useful they are. A use-value only implies a commodity’s
use to a consumer and not its value when compared to other commodities. A coat may keep
you warm as its use, but it has no real comparison to, let’s say a chair. Marx says a market
of some kind (or a “social relation” as said in [1997ut:109]) must be introduced with several
other commodities before a real value can be determined.
Hans: Value itself is not relative, but it is an immaterial social substance inherent in the commodity. Only the
”expression” or ”form” of value is relative. My [88] tries to explain why value needs an ”expression.”
Next Message by Jason is [93].
[88] Hans: Why does value need an extra form? At the beginning of the presently
assigned readings, Marx says: since a commodity is something twofold, a use-value and a
value, it needs a double form: it needs a use-value form, which is given by the body of the
commodity itself, and then it also needs a value form.
Imagine Marx teaching a class about this. Most of his students have drifted away because
his reasoning is always so abstract. Those who are still listening cannot really object to it
that something which has a double character needs a double form, sounds kind of logical,
but they cannot really wrap their brains around it what all this means. But there is this one
student, Oscar, who is a little impertinent because he always asks questions. He raises his
hand and says: Sorry Professor Marx, why are two forms needed, why can a commodity not
use its bodily form to express not only its use-value but also its value?
This was a well-placed concrete question, which forces Marx to become more concrete
in his explanations. Some of the study questions try to be nosy Oscar to Marx. And Oscar
is lucky because Marx clears his throat and brings the following much more concrete
explanation:
A commodity is something produced for exchange. It is not only a use-value but in
addition also a value, because the person who produced it did not produce it for his own use.
The producer put his labor into this commodity with the expectation that this commodity
will give him access to the labor of others materialized in things he can use. In other words,
it is not only a use-value but also a vessel containing labor, intended to serve as a claim
check on the labor of others in a use-value which our producer can use. That is what I meant
when I said that it has this double character of being both use-value and value.
Say our commodity producer is a shoe maker. Why can’t he use the use-value of his shoes
as expression of the value of his shoes? I.e., why can’t he go to the tailor and say: “Look at

58 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
these shoes I just made. They are first-rate quality, and they contain my labor. I am willing
to trade you my labor for yours, please give me the trousers you just made in exchange for
my shoes.”
The problem is of course that the tailor may not need shoes at the moment. The bigger
the economy and the more varied its use-values, the more certain is it that the tailor will want
something different and not the shoemaker’s shoes. How, then, can the shoemaker ever be
rewarded for the labor which he put into the shoes?
Only if the value of these shoes is cast into a form that is independent of all use-values.
We all know what this form is: it is money. The shoemaker first has to sell his shoes, i.e.,
turn them into money, before he can take advantage of the labor which he put into them.
The money is the form which the value of his shoes has to take in order to be useful for the
shoemaker.
You can also look at it this way: the invisible value material which the shoemaker accumulated
in his shoes during the hours of diligent work producing the shoes, is like a ghost
looking for a body. This congealed abstract labor is looking for a material form, so that it
can become an object of transaction between humans. No particular use-value will fit as a
body for this ghost, since the ghost consists of abstract labor, i.e., labor independent of the
form in which it is performed. Money is the independent material form of value, in which
value has freed itself from any particular use-value. It is the materialization of the invisible
value material inside the shoes.
So far Marx’s speech. Oscar was lucky that Marx felt talkative at the moment. At other
times Marx would just have brushed him aside with the abstract one-sentence answer: a
use-value cannot be a form of value because value is independent of all use-values.
Message [88] referenced by [85], [122], [281], and [385]. Next Message by Hans is [97].
[281] Dyoung: Commodities have both values and use-values, Marx says “that its natural
body is only a form for its use-value and therefore it needs a value form and in order to
appear as a commodity you need to have the form of a commodity. There needs to be double
form, a bodily form and a value form.”
Value comes from the consumer of the commodity and how it benefits the individual’s
human needs not itself. Value is how it fulfills the needs of the human and is it worth the
price it is demanding. Marx states that the form of value is a relation which allows the
commodity owners to take advantage of the value embedded in their commodities.
Value is an invisible but real social substance, which the commodity acquire already in
the production process. It is not obtained in the use-value because everyone would think that
there commodities use-value was more valuable than the next persons commodity and things
would get very expensive really quick. That is why it is important not to express value in a
commodity’s own use-value.
Hans: “Value is how it fulfills the needs of the human” is the mainstream neoclassical concept of utility, not Marx’s
theory. Marx gives different explanations than the mainstream, don’t throw these two theories together.
My [88] tries to answer this question.
Next Message by Dyoung is [421].
[313] Paul: Commodities cannot express their values in their use-values because you must
look at the double form of the commodity. These are the commodity’s use-value form and

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 59
the value form. We know that the use-value is the usefulness the commodity has to society.
Since use-value is subjective to the person using the commodity if you simply determined
the value by use-value there would be many different values for one given commodity. The
value-form is the form for which the value is expressed. The value of the commodity is its
exchange value; this means that the value of a commodity is a social relation. This means
that the value (abstract labor) of a commodity is expressed by how it relates with other
products’ use-value. For example, a weaver knows the amount of labor time to produce X
amount of linen. They also know how much use value a coat has to them. If the weaver
agrees to accept a coat in exchange for X amount of linen this telling of the labor time going
into the linen or the expression of the linens value. So the linens value is expressed by the
relation of use-value of the coat.
Next Message by Paul is [561].
[348] Bennett: A use-value is determined by society, society agrees upon a certain price
range for most products. But commodities can not express their values in their own usevalues
because they are not relative to one another. For example things can have a use-value
without having value; this is true when the commodities utility is not due to human labor.
Commodities that have use-values but do not have value and fit in this category include
commodities such as air and soil. These commodities have use-value but do not have value
because they are not produced by human labor.
Hans: I don’t get your argument and I am wondering if you understand the question. Your sentence “society agrees
upon a certain price range for most products” makes me wonder what you know about Marx’s labor theory of value.
Next Message by Bennett is [525].
[362] Ande: You cannot express a commodity’s value in own use-value because it is not
equal to the actual value of the commodity that is being valued. One value would be higher
or lower than the other. Your own use-value is an independent value of the commodity or
item you have. You might have a golf club you love and the own use-value to you is worth a
lot more to you than to your friend that does not like the club, he would only say it’s worth
the use-value (or market value) where as you think it is worth a lot more given it’s yours and
you love it. Own use-value is not something you can go by when coming up with a price of
a commodity that is a value determined by ones self and own opinionated value of a certain
commodity. When it comes down to it that is the reason why you cannot use ones own
use-value when it comes to commodities, you need to strictly go by use-value and market
value.
Hans: You didn’t understand the question, and your little essay has nothing to do with Marx.
Next Message by Ande is [481].
[385] Allen: A commodity has both a use-value and value. Their use-value is determined
by how useful that commodity is to consumers, while the value of the commodity is determined
by the producers because they don’t need the item itself but make the item for trade.
As a result, the value of the item is determined by the process it is created while the use-value
of the item is determined by how useful the item is to consumers.
Hans: The question did not ask how use-value and value are determined. You might benefit from reading my [88]
and [231].
Next Message by Allen is [559].
Question 160 is 134 in 2004fa, 158 in 2008fa, and 175 in 2010fa:

60 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 160 Why does Marx write “society expresses the sum of relations in which the individuals
stand” instead of “society consists of the sum of relations in which the individuals
stand”?
[84] Rey: graded A Value, a social expression? There is a temptation when thinking
about “society” as a whole, to simply explain it as group of individuals co-existing. It is
not, however a mere co-existence of individuals, but something far beyond that. To understand
a society one doesn’t examine each individual, but rather examines the results of the
interaction and expression of roles these individuals play. This is why Marx has stated, “society
expresses the sum of relations in which the individual stands.” To come to some sort
of conclusion of the social workings of a society we wouldn’t focus on “Joe Johnson” on an
intimate level. Rather we would examine his role as a teacher per se, and as a teacher how is
it that he interacts with other roles thought to belong in the same social category. We would
analyze his actions with an “administrator” or a “student” not looking at these individuals
personally either, but at their role relation with “Joe Johnson” as a teacher.
As we analyze how one individual acts in respect to the other individual we would begin
to see a certain set of social “values” unfold. Specifically in this example we would likely
come to the conclusion that our society values the benefits that come from a higher education
and more experience. However, it is important to add the administrator only holds their
elevated position for as long as the teachers continue to “value” those benefits that set them
apart.
When speaking about commodities we are able to draw a similar conclusion. A commodity
only has value because its relation with other commodities has given it such and just
as Marx has said it is in this interaction or exchange that we start our search for a commodity’s
hidden value. Again this value is only upheld for as long as its interaction with
other commodities allows it to be. It’s important to note that although value can be controlled
by exchange and interaction, previous exchange and interaction make a paradigm
shift extremely difficult.
In conclusion we see that just as “society” is an expression of individual relations, “value”
is a social expression of commodity exchange.
Message [84] referenced by [86], [92], [386], and [2010fa:155]. Next Message by Rey is [107].
[86] Hans: Social relations and their connections. With submission [84], Rey used the
homework mailing list exactly in the way it was intended: he picked a challenging question,
and formulated a carefully thought-out answer that is based on the readings.
I will still criticize the answer, but I don’t count this criticism against Rey. We are dealing
with difficult issues, and Rey did his part to resolve the issues, now it is my role to pick up
on those things Rey didn’t see. We cannot expect to understand everything all at once; Rey
showed that he made a good effort and got quite far. He will definitely get an A for this
contribution despite my criticism.
Ok, let me start my critique of [84] with what is correct in it? Rey understands correctly
that one should not identify society with the group of individuals in that society, but with the
relations between the individuals. This is a big step which has immense implications that
take some time to chew through.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 61
But then Rey makes a subtle switch in perspective away from this commitment to look at
the social relations and not the individuals which inhabit them. He writes:
To come to some sort of conclusion of the social workings of a society we
wouldn’t focus on “Joe Johnson” on an intimate level. Rather we would
examine his role as a teacher per se, and as a teacher how is it that he
interacts with other roles thought to belong in the same social category.
We would analyze his actions with an “administrator” or a “student” not
looking at these individuals personally either, but at their role relation with
“Joe Johnson” as a teacher.
This is still too much emphasis on Joe Johnson. Rey is looking how individuals fill their
social roles. This is a legitimate question, but this is not the primary question for understanding
a society. To understand capitalist society, one must look at the social relations,
such as those of a teacher, and administrator, but also relations outside the school like the
relations of an employee or a capitalist boss. And then one must ask how these relations
are connected! For instance, Marx says that there is an inexorable connection between the
boss getting richer and richer and being able to take more and more extravagant vacations,
and his employees coming to work year-in year-out without advancing in wealth but just
able to pay their mortgage. This is probably the prime example of how different social roles
are connected, but there are many other connections between different social relations. If
you look at the behavior expected from an elementary school student you will find striking
similarities to the behavior expected from an employee: show up on time and go through
boring routines on command. Again, Marx would say this is not an accident.
Message [86] referenced by [92], [309], and [386]. Next Message by Hans is [88].
[92] Chris: expression on a macrocosmic level. To express something suggests that you
are conveying a message, or making it known. For something to hold consistency, it would
have to be made up of more than one substance. Marx does not think that a society just
consists of these individuals. He thinks on a much larger and broader scale. I believe that
this is what Rey and Hans were getting at in their respective articles [84] and [86] on the
same question that I am responding to. I decided to still respond to the question because
it is a very interesting and challenging passage by Marx and I think by using direct quotes
from Capital we are able to get a better understanding of the passage. In fact, if we look
on page 152:1 of Capital, we find a direct quote that gives us a better understanding of how
Marx uses the word “express.” And he quotes, “the value of a commodity is independently
expressed through its presentation as ‘exchange-value’.” Marx presented this quote after he
discussed the exchangeability of two commodities and how each is made known through the
presentation of their exchange value relation.
In another quote on page 150:1, Marx points out that “the body of the commodity, which
serves as the equivalent, always figures as the embodiment of abstract human labour, and
is always the product of some specific useful and concrete labour. This concrete labour
therefore becomes the expression of abstract human labour.” What I get out of this quote is
that concrete labor is made known from abstract human labor. This “body of commodity”
makes me think that Marx is suggesting the commodity ‘consists’ of these forms of labor.
And the commodity would be more of a micro level aspect of the overall macro society. It

62 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
would be inconsistent of Marx to strain from this thought and suggest that society is a mere
‘consistency’ as opposed to an ‘expression.’
I used these quotes because I think they say a lot about how Marx thinks. For Marx to
suggest a society in itself is made up of, or consists of these individuals would be too vague.
Marx suggests that the society is an expression of the relations of these individuals. The individuals
manifest themselves and are made known through interaction and communication,
through the commodities for which they are exchanged and through the individuals whom
exchange them. This is a direct line of expression. This society expresses these relations.
Total them all together and you have the sum of expression. Therefore, it is safe to say that
overall, as Marx quotes, “society expresses the sum of relations in which the individuals
stand.” And like Hans mentions in [86], “one must look at the social relations, such as those
of the teacher, and administrator, but also the relations outside the school like the relations of
an employee or a capitalist boss. And then one must ask how these relations are connected!”
These relations as I mentioned earlier appear too microcosmic and do not express society
unless they are totaled together. The expression of the total sum is on a much larger scale
and in that respect, I think that Marx goes a great job of defining this social expression.
Message [92] referenced by [97]. Next Message by Chris is [146].
[97] Hans: Extensionality. In mathematics, sets are defined by the elements they contain.
Two sets are identical if and only if they contain the same elements. This is called the
extensionality principle.
In [92], Chris writes that Marx does not think the extensionality principle should be applied
to societies. Chris writes:
Marx does not think that a society just consists of these individuals. He
thinks on a much larger and broader scale.
This is an excellent observation. Chris recognizes, I think correctly, that Marx’s aphorism
Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of connections,
relations, in which these individuals stand with respect to each other.
is not only the critique of the view that societies are just big groups of individuals, but it is
also the critique of the application of the extensionality principle to societies. In Marx’s view,
societies are not defined by the elements they contain – be these elements the individuals or
the relations between individuals, but societies are higher entities. They are more than the
sums of their parts.
That observation explains satisfactorily why Marx does not say: society consists of relations
– because Marx does not want to define societies by what they consist of.
Next, Chris tries to explain why Marx uses the word “express” instead, using a very
reasonable methodology: he looks at other instances where Marx uses the word “express.”
But I am thinking in this instance Chris is reading too much into the word “express.” I think
Marx’s above aphorism is a lax formulation of what might more precisely be formulated as
follows:

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 63
Society does not consist of individuals, but the word “society” expresses
(a more modern formulation would be: signifies) the sum of connections,
relations, in which these individuals stand with respect to each other.
Message [97] referenced by [309], [2010fa:155], and [2010fa:485]. Next Message by Hans is [113].
[304] Dentist: Marx uses the word “express” deliberately because the word implies the
conveyance of an idea. Here Marx is talking about a society, which is a particular idea that
a population adheres to. To say “society expresses the sum of relations. . . ” is to say that a
society is the particular form that these collective relations take.
Comparatively, the word “consist” implies no more than a collective sum of some number
of things. Had Marx used “consist” he would have been saying that a society is no more than
a collection of individuals and their inter-relationships. This is not true. Societies are much
deeper than this. A society may indeed contain a certain number of individuals and their
inevitable interactions, but is certainly not defined by them at the individual level or basis.
The various forms that the relations between these collected individuals take and the causes
of these forms, defines a society. Marx understands this and builds his arguments on this
principle.
Message [304] referenced by [309]. Next Message by Dentist is [306].
[309] CousinIt: graded A+ the whole greater than the sum of its parts. Marx does
not see society as merely a collection of individuals. Rather, society is an expression of the
totality of social relations in which individuals stand, which is not just a sum, or quantity,
but that has particular qualitative aspects when viewed holistically as a collective expression
that is ‘greater than the sum of its parts,’ as stated by Bird [2004fa:59]. By this qualitative
perspective, we are led to look deeper beneath the surface of social structure (as the total
expression of the relations between individuals) to that which underlies those expressions
on the surface. We must be able to apprehend the nature of the hidden real material relations
which dictate the relations between individuals in order to understand the true nature of the
society in question. In a capitalist structure, society is not the quantitative “sum” of relations
but is merely the form of expression of those relations, the true nature of which is hidden,
obscured, or “mystified” by that very expression itself. The real relations of the capitalist
with those who are producing not only commodities, but the value in those commodities,
is hidden by the primary expression on the surface of capitalist society that is the market.
As Hans [86] states, it is not the group of individuals that make up capitalist society but the
structure of the qualitative relations between those individuals, as they are situated within the
structure of commodity relations in the marketplace, that determines the form of capitalist
society. In order to get at what the quality of these relations is, Marx digs beneath the
surface to reveal the hidden stratifications and contradictions that dictate the relational roles
that people must fill in order for the commodity form to persist and prevail. In doing so, we
become aware of the unnatural and exploitative quality underlying the seemingly ‘natural’
and ‘normal’ relations on the surface of the capitalist marketplace.
Hans: This is a different, and arguably better, interpretation of the word “express” than I promoted in [97]. If
I understand you right, you are saying that what we are experiencing as “society” is the empirical expression of
a nonempirical underlying structure of relations. That part that can be empirically verified is only the tip of the
iceberg.
With this in mind I can also better understand Dentist’s [304]. Dentist had the same intuition as you, but in
part of his answer he located the underlying structure of relations in the realm of ideas. A depth realist would say:

64 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
society is more than an idea but a real structure. It is real because it has real effects. Some of these effects use
material force (when people are thrown into jail). But many of these effects go through the socially conditioned
ideas which people have in their heads.
Next Message by CousinIt is [312].
[317] Gerund: We are social beings. Individuals have no identity except for the ways
we relate to other human beings (or in the realm of religion, to God). As such, society can
express the sum of relations, showing meaning in how we all relate to each other, but it can
not consist of the sum of relations because that implies that we consist of identity other than
our relations. In short, the former phrasing points out the richness of meaning, but the latter
reduces to meaninglessness.
Hans: Marx says that social relations cannot be derived from the individuals. Nevertheless, he believes that individuals
exist.
Next Message by Gerund is [706].
[386] Rey: graded A As I stated in my homework post [84]: “There is a temptation when
thinking about ‘society’ as a whole, to simply explain it as a group of individuals co-existing.
It is not, however a mere co-existence of individuals, but something far beyond that. To
understand a society, [or system] one doesn’t have to examine each individual, but rather
examines the results of the interaction and expression of roles these individuals play.” This
is why Marx uses the word “express” rather then “consists.” In examining interaction, Hans
teaches us in post [86] that we must specifically look at “how these relations are connected.”
In his post Hans goes on to examine how it is an employer is related to their boss. He points
out that there is an inevitable relation between the two roles, specifically that the employer
gains wealth at the expense of the employee. In a capitalist society, this is how these two
social roles will always be connected. Thus if we know how two individuals in different
social roles interact with one another, we can determine what kind of society/system they live
in. This is due to the fact Marx feels that the society/system determines these relations and
that certain societies/systems will always yield certain types of interactions. Quite simply
the sum of people’s relations expresses the type of society/system they live in.
Next Message by Rey is [392].
[588] JPeel: content B late penalty 43% Marx writes “society expresses the sum of
relations in which the individuals stand” instead of “society consists of the sum of relations
in which the individuals stand” because he is addressing the point that society generates a
way of expressing something, which may not be the actual truth. It’s easier to express what
you want to consist rather than to actually consist it. So Marx brings up a very valid point
of the way society works. He does this to create a better understanding of relations and the
way individuals interact with each other. The roles people may play are not created by that
particular person but are gradually reformed over time and become “that” role.
Next Message by JPeel is [603].
Question 169 is 113 in 2001fa, 123 in 2002fa, 126 in 2003fa, 143 in 2004fa, 144 in
2005fa, and 167 in 2008fa:
Question 169 In a capitalist economy very few commodities are directly exchanged against
each other: almost all transactions involve money and a commodity. Why does Marx start
his investigation with the exchange relation between two commodities, instead with the much
more common relation between money and a commodity?

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 65
[104] Carterryan: Marx does this comparison because he looks at commodities’ value as
labor based, meaning what the cost of labor that was put into the commodity in question not
just the use value.
Marx uses the comparison that 20 yards of linen and 1 coat have the same equal value.
This is a way of saying that the amount of time and raw materials used for the linen equals
the same in 1 coat.
Money, which is a more common use of exchange has no real value, meaning that the
commodiites in exchange have real equal value. That is why Marx uses that comparison.
Message [104] referenced by [119]. Next Message by Carterryan is [205].
[119] Hans: Why both money and labor. Carterryan [104] says that Marx does not
need money because Marx measures things by labor. Money is only needed by mainstream
economics which measures things by their use-values.
This is an interesting thought, but it is easily refuted, by the fact that money does play an
important role in Marx. For Marx, money is the exterior measuring stick which complements
the inner, hidden, communality which commodities have as products of labor.
Here is Marx’s argument in a nutshell. He starts with two different commodities. Then
he says: the fact that these commodities are exchanged with each other means they are
treated as equal. Then he says: these commodities indeed have something equal in them,
namely, labor. And then he says: this inner equality of all commodities as products of labor
is reflected on the surface by them both being available for money.
This chain of reasoning cannot start with money because money is the result of this
derivation. A modern economist might say: money in this theory is endogenous, while
the things Marx starts with must be exogenous.
Next Message by Hans is [121].
Question 170 is 106 in 1997ut, 165 in 2004fa, 168 in 2008fa, and 176 in 2009fa:
Question 170 The linen weaver just said: “20 yards of linen is worth one coat.” In response
to this, the tailor offers her a coat in exchange for her 20 yards of linen. Is the weaver now
obligated to follow through with this exchange, or can she still decline?
[98] Goethe: graded A does the weaver want a coat or linen? The answer to this is
relative to the situation.
One scenario could be where a tailor goes to the weaver for linen. The weaver will give
the tailor her price for the linen. The price will be the exchange value of the linen, and can
be in any form. The tailor may ask how much linen he can get for in exchange for a coat he
has made. The weaver could tell the tailor she is not in need of a coat, and the tailor would
need to exchange something else for the linen. If the weaver needs a coat she will tell the
tailor the quantity of linen she is willing to exchange for a coat. In this situation when the
weaver says “20 yards of linen are worth one coat” the weaver is obligated to follow through
with the transaction.
A different scenario could be when the tailor and weaver are engaged in a conversation
not related to each other’s needs. The weaver then states “20 yards of linen are worth one

66 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
coat”, when the tailor offers the coat here, the weaver is not obligated to follow through.
This is obviously not a situation of barter, and the weaver can do whatever she wants.
Hans: Good thinking. But there is one subtlety which you didn’t get, and which nobody can expect you to get. All
encounters between commodity owners in a barter economy should be considered sales, not purchases. Someone
produces something, and the next step is to find someone who needs what they have produced. Only then can the
bartering begin. I.e., the conversation between weaver and tailor did not start because the tailor wanted to buy linen
with a coat, but because the linen weaver wanted to sell the linen. Marx says that the linen is active, the coat is
passive.
Message [98] referenced by [101] and [2008fa:465]. Next Message by Goethe is [184].
[101] Ande: In Marx’s terms the weaver would be obligated to follow through with the
exchange. As Marx assumes it is immediately obvious to the reading that it is an expression
of value. It can even be used as a verbal expression. If the lined weaver says to the tailor
“20 yards of linen are worth one coat,” this means that she is willing to exchange 20 yards
of linen for a coat. That says it all. Marx believes that a verbal commitment is enough to
follow through and exchange your linen for one coat. Although it is not a law or required
that you do this, it is a verbal agreement and in Marx’s terms, that is agreement enough to
feel obligated to follow through with what you agreed on.
I personally feel the same way Marx does. A verbal agreement is enough to feel obligated
to follow through. If you tell someone you will trade them a coat for linen you better follow
through and make the trade. If that is what the market is at but you have not said anything
then no you should not have to make the trade, if you don’t want a coat you should not
have to trade you linen for it just because the market price says you should. The market is a
whole each individual does not have to follow that market trend, and that is where Marx and
I would disagree. Overall, on the issue Marx and I would agree that a verbal agreement is
agreement enough, and if you told someone that you would trade a coat for linen, then you
now have an obligation to follow through and make the trade.
Hans: How does your answer relate to Goethe’s [98]?
Next Message by Ande is [103].
Question 172 is 73 in 1995WI, 81 in 1995ut, 84 in 1996sp, 85 in 1996ut, 91 in 1997WI, 94
in 1997sp, 89 in 1997ut, and 148 in 2004fa:
Question 172 Can one say the coat, in the equation 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, symbolizes
the value of the linen?
[109] Wasatch: According to Marx, value is a social relation of production. While the
same amount of labor is going into the one coat and the 20 yards of linen this does not mean
that the value of the linen is the same as the coat. I guess it depends on the person you are
looking at. Maybe to the tailor, someone that sees linen as something that has a lot of value,
the 20 yards of linen is worth the same amount as the coat. But, to a plumber, someone that
has little use for 20 raw yards of fabric, and therefore does not see a lot of value in the linen,
the coat has much more value.
Hans’s example of potatoes and the coat helps us look at this value problem in greater
light. Let us assume that the 10 potatoes and the coat were produced with the same amount
of physical labor.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 67
If a person is starving but has plenty of coats they see the potatoes as having much more
value. And a person with hundreds of potatoes stored in his cellar and not a coat to wear will
see the coat as having much more value than the potatoes.
The value of a commodity is solely based on the relation a social group has to the producton
of the product. Therefore the value of a commodity can change from one social group to
another.
Message [109] referenced by [121]. Next Message by Wasatch is [290].
[112] Ken: The equation 20 yards of linen = 1 coat is stating that 20 yards of linen are
worth one coat. This equation is evaluating the value of the linen with the use value of
the coat. This equation is not comparing the value of the linen with the value of the coat.
Therefore this equation can not symbolize the value of the linen.
The value of the linen can not be found in this equation because the use value is very
different than the value of the coat. The use value depends largely on the usefulness the
commodity provides to the consumer. The value however is determined by the amount of
labor hours that were allocated to the commodity. Since this equation compares the value of
linen to the use value of the coat you are unable to determine the value of the linen.
Message [112] referenced by [122]. Next Message by Ken is [483].
[121] Hans: Social relations are not necessarily subjective and relative. When the
Annotations say that value is a social relation, Wasatch [109] thinks that this means that it
depends on the individual how something is valued. If Marx wanted to say this, he would
say “value is subjective and relative.”
The relation between you and the policeman in his car or on the bike is a social relation:
it is determined by rules which neither you nor the policeman have any power over. If you
commit certain infractions he must pull you over.
Marx thinks that value has a similar character. Value is determined by things which
the commodity producer has no power over, namely, the socially necessary labor-time to
produce this product. Our commodity producer may wake up one morning and the value of
his commodity just has fallen by half. Someone around the globe has invented a method to
produce it, or a substitute, at a much lower cost. Then inexorably the price of this commodity
will fall too. This is not under the control of the commodity producer, it is a bigger social
force, and it is something which originates not in the sphere of circulation but in the sphere
of production.
Next Message by Hans is [122].
[122] Hans: How in the world can a coat represent value? Ken says in [112] that the
use-value of the coat bears no similiarity with the value of the linen, and it can therefore not
be taken as a representation of the value of the linen. This is an excellent objection. It could
have come from nosy Oscar in [88]. Let’s see how Marx would have answered this.
Marx (or Hans, pretending to be Marx) would say to Ken:
You are right, the linen weaver is not interested in representing value. She simply needs
a coat, and she does in the framework of commodity production what is necessary to get a
coat.

68 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
But without intending to do so, her actions also blurt out what value is. Here is what her
actions say:
(1) by offering linen for coat, she says that the value of the linen is different from the
use-value of the linen.
(2) Indeed she says that the value of the linen looks like a coat, and this is exactly Ken’s
objection: value simply does not look like coats. But coats are not the only thing the linen
weaver accepts in exchange for her linen: she also needs many other use-values. (This is
the expanded form of value). If you take all this together, the linen weaver says that value is
generally something different from any use-value.
(3) This is not yet all. The linen weaver is able to exchange her linen for many other
commodities only if these other commodities represent their values in linen. If this becomes
a social agreement, that one commodity is chosen (probably not linen, but something like
gold), in which all other commodities express their value, (now we are at the general form of
value), this is a big step forward. Now this one commodity is directly exchangeable against
all other commodities, it can buy other commodities. I.e., the owner of this commodity is
no longer tied to one use-value, but he or she can effortlessly switch to any use-value they
want. This is like having value itself in your pocket, stripped of all use-value.
This is a summary of the main steps of Section 3. In this Section, Marx describes the
process how the spontaneous activity of the commodity traders generates something on the
surface of the economy, i.e., money, which is the material existence of the invisible social
value material, i.e., of the abstract labor, in the commodities.
Next Message by Hans is [125].
Question 181 The exchange relationship between the commodities is a symmetric relationship:
if 20 yards of linen can be exchanged for a coat, then a coat can also be exchanged for
20 yards of linen. Besides, Marx said in 126:2 that this relationship appears at first as the
quantitative proportion in which commodities can be exchanged for each other. Why, then,
is it wrong to consider this relationship as a symmetric and quantitative relationship?
[99] Bar: graded C+ Quantitative and Symmetric commodities relationship. It is
wrong to consider the quantitative relationship between the linen and a coat on Marxian
observation of intrinsic value or use-value vs. exchange value. On the one hand the yarn has
labor invested in its makeup of value and so does the coat, where the labor accounting for
the supply of the coat to the demand created by its perceived value depending on its utility,
or the scarcity of these commodities giving a quantitative price for the coat. This price can
be interpreted as being 1 coat = 20 yards of linen or simply put the exchange rate. Of course,
in simple terms this relationship can be manipulated through the crowding-out process of
taxation of these commodities. Marx says that the common sense approach to this, saying
that value can only be placed relative to other commodities, is a fallacy. Just because you
can get 20 yards of linen for one coat doesn’t mean that the linen is “worth” in the sense of
use-value, the same as the coat, because to increase the use value of the linen it requires more
investment of labor. It’s a symmetric relationship, but it’s not quantitative in the sense that

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 69
there is direct value exchange and therefore a quantitative price, only that there is a linear
symmetric relationship.
Hans: You are packing so much into every sentence that your writing reads like the output of a computer program
designed to generate intelligent sounding sentences. Marx’s reasoning is very abstract, which means, Marx tries to
penetrate into the depths of the issues. For this one cannot be rushed. You must go much more slowly.
I also recommend that you apply, if only temporarily and for argument’s sake, the concepts and the paradigm
used by Marx. I have the impression that you first are trying to convert everything Marx says into a neoclassical
framework before you are willing to process it. This does not work because Marx’s theory and neoclassical
theory are seriously at odds with each other. I think looking at the Marxian alternative can also strengthen your
understanding of the neoclassical framework.
I would also recommend that you come to the class sessions or listen to the on-line class podcasts, see
http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/audio/2008SP/index.htm
You might enjoy it more than you think.
After all this philosophical advice just one substantive remark about your argument why the relativity of value
is a fallacy. If Marx says that the exchange relations between commodities are based on something inside the
commodities, this is not the same thing as saying that the use-values of the commodities exchanged must be the
same. That what gives a commodity its value has nothing to do with the use-value of the commodity. (This is one
of the points where Marx and mainstream economics go completely different ways.)
Next Message by Bar is [106].
Question 183 is 79 in 1995WI, 101 in 1998WI, 109 in 1999SP, 124 in 2001fa, 181 in
2008fa, 190 in 2009fa, and 212 in 2012fa:
Question 183 What does the qualitative equation “linen = coat” tell us about the coat?
about the linen?
[105] Allen: linen = coat. The qualitative equation shows that the coat has a value because
it can be exchanged for or converted to linen. As for the linen the equation also shows that
the linen has a value in which it can be exchanged for the coat. But as Marx 141:1 states,
this shows us the simple form of value, because no matter what the linen weaver is willing
to take in exchange for her 20 yards of linen be it for one coat or any amount of coats, this
equation shows everyone that these two different kinds of commodities, linen and coats, are
equal to each other and can be exchanged for one another.
Hans: You should reverse your emphasis. That coat and linen are equal is the obvious message. That the coat is
value because linen can be had for it, and that linen is value because it can be exchanged for the coat which is value,
is the deeper message which is not as obvious.
Message [105] referenced by [328] and [338]. Next Message by Allen is [382].
[259] Srichardson: graded A The qualitative equation that linen = coat shows us that the
coat is value because you can get linen for a coat and that linen is also value because you can
trade it for a coat which is value. The value of the coat is held in the labor of the coat which
makes it so that the coat has value and can be equal to the linen. Therefore the opportunity
shows the value and not the price at which the coat was sold for. The labor is what makes the
value of the coat and the linen and because they are exchangeable for each other this shows
the equation linen = coat.
Hans: Your first sentence is right. Then you bring labor in. This is justified because every result of Marx’s
theoretical derivation of value is told by the relationship between linen and coat. Here is an attempt to bring labor
into the discussion in the right way:
How does the exchange relationship between linen and coat tell us that value comes from labor? Because it
equates linen and coat, and labor is the only thing they have in common. (I think Marx is cheating here a little
bit, he treats a fact as if it could be derived by logic. But if one considers to whom linen and coat are talking,

70 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
namely, to the commodity producers who observe the market in order to know what to produce, then labor comes
in automatically: it is the main decision variable of the producers, since the same laborers are able to produce many
different things.)
How does the linen tell us that its value has nothing to do with its bodily properties? By expressing its value in
the (woolen) coat which is an entirely different use-value than the linen itself.
Next Message by Srichardson is [395].
[280] Goethe: graded B Linen = coat. The value of the linen is the same as the value of
the coat. The value of the linen is expressed in the terms of a coat, and the value of a coat
is expressed in terms of linen. The coat will have value as it can be exchanged for linen and
the linen will have value as it can be exchanged for the coat.
Hans: The equation “20 yards of linen is worth a coat” does not mean that the value of the linen is the same as the
value of the coat. Rather it means that the coat is the value of the linen.
Message [280] referenced by [2009fa:62] and [2009fa:384]. Next Message by Goethe is [363].
[287] Chris: dissecting a not-so-simple equation. To format my dissection of the question,
I referenced passages in Marx’s essay, “The content of the relative form of value”
starting on page 140 of Capital. In reference to the equation “linen = coat,” Marx says on
page 141 that “only the value of the linen. . . is expressed.” Linen is the only value expressed
because it is used to make up the coat. The equation tells us that the coat then gains its
use-value because it can be physically used (i.e. keep a person warm).
To turn linen into a coat, human labor must be used. As Marx says on page 144, “a
given quantity of any commodity contains a definite quantity of human labour.” Once this
human labor is placed on the linen to create the coat, we realize that the coat is a mysterious
embodiment of linen. I would go out on a limb to say that the coat as a commodity is the
finalized version of the linen. Marx suggests on page 143 that “within its value-relation to
the linen, the coat signifies more than it does outside it, just as some men count for more
when inside a gold-braided uniform than they dootherwise.”
An opinion that I hope is not too far from this question is that one person may find it more
convenient to not go through the process of creating the coat from linen and could possibly
exchange more linen to the creator of the coat to signify the human labor that was needed.
It is here where we see the capitalist system begin. Capitalists control the machinery to
produce the linen into coats. A Marxist would then say that the capitalists control the human
labor since they control the capital (i.e. machinery). Therefore, the equation “linen = coat”
signifies something much greater than just value within the linen and the coat. It represents
the value of the capitalistic society on a macroeconomic level.
Hans: I appreciate your close reading of the text, but the idea that the coat represents the value of linen because
it is a finished product made out of linen is a misconception you must have picked up elsewhere, and you did not
notice that Marx was thinking along completely different lines.
Next Message by Chris is [354].
[303] Dentist: The expression linen = coat tells us that the coat is the “active” expression
of the “passive” linen. It also tells us that “linen” and “coat” have something, namely their
value in common. This value that each commodity possesses is what equates them, because
their respective physical properties, use values and the specific labor that produced them
does not, and cannot. It is this third avenue of value that allows them to be related to each
other as commodities in some quantitative way.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 71
Whether it is expressed as linen = coat, or as coat = linen, we can conclude that both are
equal to each other in some way. And since their physical properties or specific labor cannot
do this, there must be a third identity that can. This identity is their respective value that
comes from the general human labor used to produce either the linen, or the coat. Now we
have something in common between the commodities that we can measure from to establish
a specific value to both the coat, and the linen. These commodities can now be equated
to each other as values, and exchanged, so long as the appropriate quantities of each are
present.
Hans: The linen is active, not the coat. The linen is the thing which expresses.
You are deriving the substance of value from the form, while the question, and Marx’s text around the question,
is concerned about a closer investigation of the form itself.
In your last two sentences you say that things can be exchanged because they have something in common.
This is not quite right. Things can be exchanged even if they have nothing in common. But if the exchange is
as ubiquitous as in a capitalist society, then it would not make sense if goods would be exchanged, i.e., treated as
equals on the market, if they did not indeed be in some way equal.
Next Message by Dentist is [304].
[324] Papageorgio: Linen=Coat. When we look at the qualitative equation linen = coat
we first see the obvious part of this equation, simply that linen is equal to the coat. The
equation as we look at it shows us that the commodity owners feel that the labor that is put
into the coat is equal to the labor put into the linen. When in the reading we are told 20 yards
of linen = 1 coat it is putting value on both the linen and also the coat. The labor that is
put into the linen is being placed equal with the labor that was put into making the coat. So
therfore the equality comes from labor. I really enjoyed what Allison said, in [1995WI:324],
she states, “the value is not socially {1} determined but rather socially {2} determined...by
the interpersonal interactions and contact of the commodities themselves.” In this class we
talk about expression of value, and this is a very good example where we can show that
expression, and a very good quote by her to help back this up. I’m glad I was able to use
sources in my revision and see this.
If a weaver is willing to trade the linen for a coat, it is because he/she feels that the labor
that was put into the linen has given it value. He/she feels that it can be put up against
soemthing, exchangeable if you will. Qualitatively we look at this equation and must ask
ourselves if the labor we put into something is worth what we want for it.
Hans: The distinction between social {1} and social {2} was important in the earlier editions of the Annotations, but
later I discontinued this notation while maintaining the meaning of it.
A social {2} relationship is an interpersonal relationship, in which people indeed come in contact with each
other. A social relationship as distinct from an interpersonal relationship is called a social {1} relationship.
For instance value is a social relationship which can be compared to an immaterial substance inside the products
of labor, i.e., which should not be understood as a social {2} relationship. Everybody in a commodity economy treats
the products of labor as if they had the labor-power used in producing them still attached to them like the emperor’s
new clothes. This immaterial substance needs a “form” or, in other words, an interpersonal social {2} relationship
which co-ordinates the activities so that everyone indeed treats the emperor’s new clothes as if they were real. This
form of value is the exchange-value and ultimately money.
Next Message by Papageorgio is [327].
[328] Spawnblade: The qualitative equation “linen=coat” tells us simply that the coat
and linen are equal. Allen [105] explains that because of this equation, it doesn’t matter
what the “weaver” will exchange her 20 yards of linen for, this qualitative statement says it
is irrelevant. This means the coat has the same value as the linen, and the linen the same

72 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
value as the coat, and because of this they both now have a value because of the possibility
for exchange derived from their equality.
Hans: Your formulation “the coat has the same value as the linen” puts the quantitative dimension back in, because
this formulation usually means “the value of the coat is as big as that of the linen.”
Nobody says the quantitative exchange proportion does not matter. Marx says only that this quantitative information
should not overshadow the qualitative fact that coats can be had for linen. There is already a lot of
information in this, even without knowing the quantitative exchange proportion. In your in-class answer you are
saying that as use-values, coat and linen are not the same. Marx would agree; but he would continue: if they are
treated as equals (on the market) then something in them must be equal. It is not their use-value but their labor. If
nothing in them were equal, then the equal treatment on the market would have no basis and the market would not
be the right surface mediation for the relations of production under which they are produced. (This last sentence is
not exactly Marx himself but my interpretation of how Marx must be understood.)
Next Message by Spawnblade is [331].
[338] Khwai: graded A+ The asymmetry of “linen = coat” The qualitative equation
“linen = coat” serves to illustrate the social relation between linen and coat. Obviously we
know that linen and coat are not the same commodity and so this is not a total equivalence
in terms of form but rather showing a relation of value. This relation is based upon the
perspective of the weaver and hence the equation is qualitatively asymmetric, meaning the
statements “linen = coat” and “coat = linen” are not equivalent. The weaver, who has created
the linen, knows the labor-time used in the creation of the linen and hence the value of the
linen. This is not yet apparent to society at large as they have no means of knowing the value
of linen. The weaver declares that “20 yards of linen is worth one coat” As Marx states
in 141:1, the quantitative measure within this statement is not important for our current
discussion inasmuch as they merely modify magnitude; but the admission that both linen
and coat are both “expressions of the same unit” or expressions of value is significant.
The weaver has recognized the use-value of the coat and expressed their willingness to
exchange linen, an object whose labor-value they are intimately aware of, for said coat. This
then establishes not only the relationship between linen and coat but also society’s perception
of linen and coat. Coat now is perceived as a symbol of value because it is exchangeable
for linen, though this is an expression of the coat’s use-value as perceived by the weaver and
may not be obvious to all. It follows that linen must also be value in order to be exchanged
for coat as Marx states, “for only as value can the linen point to the coat as something
equivalent with linen or exchangeable for linen”. Re-emphasizing the asymmetry of this
equation Marx states in 141:2 that “only the value of the linen is expressed, not that of the
coat.” The linen takes an active role exhibiting its labor-value whereas the coat is passive
and serves as a symbol of value. It is through this social relation of an exchange that society
is able to recognize the value of the linen.
Hans provided a succinct summary of this answer in his comments on Allen’s answer in
[105], “the coat is value because linen can be had for it and [the] linen is value because it
can be exchanged for the coat which is value”.
Message [338] referenced by [378], [2009fa:62], [2009fa:457], [2009fa:480], [2009fa:504], and [2009fa:548]. First
Message by Khwai is [329].
[343] Jenn: graded A– “=” equals social relationship. The qualitative equation “linen=coat”
can tell us about value expression both from a market standpoint, and an individual producer
standpoint. From a market standpoint, the equation shows that there is a social relationship

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 73
between the linen and the coat. They both have value, and therefore contain congealed abstract
labor. However, in Marx’s text, the linen is defined as being the “active” commodity,
and the coat is the “passive” commodity. The value of the “active” commodity (linen) is
being expressed through the “passive” commodity (coat). This equation tells us that it is
socially acceptable to exchange linen for a coat.
From an individual producer’s standpoint, as Hans cites in [2001fa:61], the value of the
linen is expressed in the use-value of the coat. The linen producer is asking his/herself
whether they would accept a coat in exchange for the commodity in which they put useful
labor into producing. Evaluating this equation from this perspective also demonstrates that
the “=” sign represents a social relationship between the commodities, and not a quantitative
value.
Next Message by Jenn is [527].
[346] Tim: graded B– The Qualitative equation linen = coat is an interesting statement
because obviously a coat does not equal linen, but in the eyes of the linen weaver a certain
amount of linen is equal in value to the coat. The weaver knows how much labor went into
the linen, and the weaver knows how much he is giving up when trading a certain amount
of linen for the coat. Before the trade takes place, unless you are a linen weaver, you will
not know how much linen is worth a coat. The same goes for all commodities when they
are being exchanged for a coat. Unless the person trading for the coat knows the true value
of the item being traded, the true value of the coat can not be determined. When comparing
the coat with other items, value is unknown unless, the person who made the item is there
to know how much was given up in order to produce the item. This equation can be made
using other items, not just linen and coats, but one must know how much of one item it takes
to match the value of the other item in order to have an equal trade.
Hans: “20 yards of linen is worth one coat” is not a comparison of the values, i.e., it is different from saying that
the value of 20 yards of linen is equal to the value of the coat. Instead, in the above statement the coat is the value
of 20 yards of linen.
Next Message by Tim is [458].
[352] Raynold: x commodity A = y commodity B, or x commodity A is worth y commodity
B.
20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or 20 Yards of linen are worth 1 coat.
Here two different kinds of commodities (in our example the linen and the coat), evidently
play two different parts. The linen expresses its value in the coat; the coat serves as the
material in which that value is expressed. The former plays an active, the latter a passive,
part. The value of the linen is represented as relative value, or appears in relative form. The
coat officiates as equivalent, or appears in equivalent form.
The relative form and the equivalent form are two intimately connected, mutually dependent
and inseparable elements of the expression of value; but, at the same time, are mutually
exclusive, antagonistic extremes – i.e., poles of the same expression. They are allotted respectively
to the two different commodities brought into relation by that expression. It is not
possible to express the value of linen in linen. 20 yards of linen = 20 yards of linen is no
expression of value. On the contrary, such an equation merely says that 20 yards of linen
are nothing else than 20 yards of linen, a definite quantity of the use value linen. The value

74 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
of the linen can therefore be expressed only relatively – i.e., in some other commodity. The
relative form of the value of the linen presupposes, therefore, the presence of some other
commodity – here the coat – under the form of an equivalent. On the other hand, the commodity
that figures as the equivalent cannot at the same time assume the relative form. That
second commodity is not the one whose value is expressed. Its function is merely to serve
as the material in which the value of the first commodity is expressed.
No doubt, the expression 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or 20 yards of linen are worth 1
coat, implies the opposite relation. 1 coat = 20 yards of linen, or 1 coat is worth 20 yards
of linen. But, in that case, I must reverse the equation, in order to express the value of the
coat relatively; and. so soon as I do that the linen becomes the equivalent instead of the coat.
A single commodity cannot, therefore, simultaneously assume, in the same expression of
value, both forms. The very polarity of these forms makes them mutually exclusive.
Whether, then, a commodity assumes the relative form, or the opposite equivalent form,
depends entirely upon its accidental position in the expression of value – that is, upon
whether it is the commodity whose value is being expressed or the commodity in which
value is being expressed.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S3
Next Message by Raynold is [358].
[360] Slash: 20 yards of linen equals one coat. 20 yards of linen equals one coat because
both linen and the coat have value. The value Marx is talking about it labor. In my in class
essay I made the mistake of misunderstanding linen’s value due to it being used to make the
coat. The coat itself is a separate object, displaying its use value, which is wanting to be
sold, or exchanged. The coat doesn’t represent the value of the linen, but rather indicates
the labor on the coat which could have been used to make linen. The linen being turned into
coat is not important, because total labor needed to manufacture the coat plus all its materials
equals the total labor needed to make the linen. 20 years of linen equals one coat is simply
a qualitative question, because it represents the linen weaver’s decision to trade 20 yards of
linen for 1 coat.
Hans: Perhaps you should have said: the coat does not represent the use-value of the linen, because in Marx’s
terminology, making the labor in the linen visible as labor which could also have been used to make a coat is
exactly what “representing the value of the linen” means.
Next Message by Slash is [464].
[368] Andy: In class Response:
The qualitative equation “linen = coat” means that these commodities have the same
value, in the sense that their exchangeable values that are the same. This tells us that the
coat is equal to linen in the sense that its labor is equal therefore they are exchangeable even
though their use values may be different they are an equal commodity. Meaning the owner
of the coat agrees that it is an equal exchange for the linen, and the owner of the linen agrees
that is an equal exchange for the warmth of the coat. However it could be a different equation
if the values were thought to be different for example it could be 20 yards of linen for one
coat. So you must first find the value of the commodity before finding the correct equation.
Out of class Response:

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 75
Given this equation it doesn’t matter how much linen, or how many coats is thrown into
the equation. Whatever the proportion, these are things of the same nature. It is an exchange
offer that tells everyone that in some respects, the two different commodity-kinds linen and
coat are equal to each other. Marx says that this equation is asymmetric, that the linen is
produced by the producer regarding the labor time, skills, materials and equipment used,
and the coat is a use value the linen weaver needs. The linen is offered on the market in
exchange for coats where coats can convert into linen but linen is not exchangeable for
coats. So to sum this up the value of the coat may be more “dazzling” than the linen. But in
society these two commodity values are generally equivalent.
Next Message by Andy is [476].
[369] Samantha: Equality gained through labor. The equation “linen=coat” tells us
that the coat while having a value that is deemed higher by the bourgeoisie does not have
a qualitative value higher than the linen. Hans in [2007fa:186] says, “(Marx) infers that
commodities must have something equal inside them in order to be exchangeable”. This
equality is the labor that is done to both in order to get the linen and the coat, meaning that
both the labor of the person making the coat and the labor of the person making the linen
should be valued equally. This is how Marx is arguing value throughout this whole section,
by claiming that society makes the coat worth more, but that truly the labor and therefore
the value should be equal. Regardless of the fact that the linen can be made into the coat the
labor should be valued the same.
Hans: You are still thinking in terms of quantitative equality. The labor making linen and the labor making coats
are qualitatively equal. This is true whether the value of 20 yards of linen is more or less than that of the coat. What
is your argument that the bourgeoisie values the coat higher than the linen? Please answer this question through the
fill-in form in the html archives, i.e., by going to
http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/2008SP/369.htm
Next Message by Samantha is [370].
[378] Jeremy: The qualitative equation “linen=coat” tells us many things about the coat
and the linen. In terms of exchange value, they are the equivalent of each other. The labor
is valued equally between both as well. The labor put into each, for the agreed upon
quantity of coat and linen, is seen as equal. This statement also implies that under all circumstances,
linen is the equivalent of the coat and vice-versa. Very briefly, it also implies
that specialization can be reduced and even set equal to general abstract labor.
Hans: Actually, the equalization of labors increases specialization: commodity producers try to escape the equalization
imposed by the market by finding a niche of specialized labor which is rewarded better by the market.
Your items are ok, but Marx had a different story what this equation tells us about linen and coat. It is a quite
subtle kind of argument and worth looking at. To begin with, Marx considers it as an asymmetric equation. Khwai
[338] gives an excellent summary of Marx’s argument as read through the lense of my Annotations.
Next Message by Jeremy is [473].
[631] Rmuscolino: The qualitative equation, “linen = coat” are both magnitudes of value,
expressions of the same unit, and things of the same nature. Linen = coat is the basis of the
equation. The exchange offer tells us that is some respects, the two different commoditykinds
linen and coat are equal to each other. Marx adds the asymmetry to this equality
by looking at the individual motivation of the linen weaver and the fact that the linen is a
commodity which the linen weaver has produced. The coat is a use-value the linen weaver
needs. The linen is offered on the market in exchange for coats. Marx also states that by

76 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
setting the coat as a thing of value equal to the linen, the commodity owners also set the
labor embedded in the coat equal to the labor embedded in the linen.
Next Message by Rmuscolino is [632].
Question 223 is 216 in 2007fa, 221 in 2008fa, 234 in 2009fa, 261 in 2010fa, 225 in
2011fa, and 235 in 2012fa:
Question 223 How does it become plain here that it is not the exchange of commodities
which regulates the magnitude of their values, but rather the reverse, it is the magnitude of
the value of commodities which regulates the proportion in which they are exchanged?
[136] Kevin: graded A– Opportunity cost vs. price. Marcellus [2007fa:103] does a
great job illustrating this concept. He shows that just because someone is given something
of different use-value for a commodity, it does not change the actual value of the commodity
itself.
If I understand the concept correctly, the coat, in the example by Marx, has its own value
before ever coming to market. Its intrinsic value is the labor which went into making the
coat. This labor includes not only the physically demanding time of creating the coat but
also the skill and knowledge the laborer possessed that became woven into the coat itself.
This is the value of the coat.
Thus, for only the people who know what labor went into making the coat will the exchange
value equal the actual value of the coat. Individuals who are unaware of the labor
spent on the commodity are likely to trade it for something of greater or lesser value and
have no idea. That unequal exchange does nothing to change the actual value of the coat.
Even if it were to affect the next exchange value of the coat, the real value of the coat would
not be affected.
The value of the coat is really the opportunity cost of the creation of the coat. If that
laborer had worked equally as hard at something else he was equally qualified to make, the
value of that new commodity would be exactly equal to the value of the coat regardless of
what was traded either was traded for after production. Therefore, the opportunity really
shows the value and not the price at which the coat was sold.
Message [136] referenced by [144]. Next Message by Kevin is [138].
[144] Hans: Market Participants’ Knowledge of Labor time. Kevin writes in [136]:
Thus, for only the people who know what labor went into making the coat
will the exchange value equal the actual value of the coat. Individuals who
are unaware of the labor spent on the commodity are likely to trade it for
something of greater or lesser value and have no idea.
Such particular knowledge by the market participants is not necessary. In [2005fa:966], I
compared the market to a big camera which makes an image of the otherwise invisible labor
contents on the surface:
Commodity circulation acts as a big photo camera that projects a picture
of the otherwise invisible labor contents in the prices haggled out on the
market. This photographic process works as follows: if a good is in excess

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 77
demand, its price is bid up, and then the producers will switch more labor
into producing this good and increase its supply and lower its price. This
process goes on until prices are proportional to labor inputs, at which point
nobody is motivated to switch labor around any more.
In [2007SP:586] I tried to convey the same message by calling the labor content the
“elephant in the room” whenever an exchange is made:
Although nobody is talking about this labor content, it plays an important
role in the surface interactions; it is so-to-say the elephant in the room. If
market prices are above the value determined by this labor content, more
suppliers will tend to appear on the market until the discrepancy between
values and prices disappears, and if market prices are below value, supply
will diminish.
Message [144] referenced by [153], [215], [295], [296], [332], [335], [370], [375], [2011fa:90], [2012fa:206], and
[2012fa:277]. Next Message by Hans is [145].
Question 235 is 221 in 2007SP, 228 in 2007fa, 246 in 2009fa, and 249 in 2012fa:
Question 235 Compare Marx’s derivation of money with the derivations of money in modern
Economics
[129] PrivateProperty: Derivation of Money: Marx v. Mainstream. Marx derives the
concept of money through the exchange relations of commodities. First, he starts with the
simple form of value, in which one commodity (i.e. linen) is traded against another (i.e.
coat); this form expresses two commodities as an exchange relation (i.e. 20 yards linen = 1
coat). Going one step further, Marx states that in this exchange, one commodity is valued in
terms of the other commodity(s) that can be got for it. Obviously, there are usually multiple
commodities in an economy, so linen can be valued in terms of every other commodity it
can be exchanged for (i.e. a certain number of coats, bushels of wheat, pounds of lead, etc.).
Eventually Marx gets to a point, known as the General Form, in which every commodity is
valued in relation to each other. At such a point one particular commodity becomes a standard
store of value, either because it is an often-exchanged or easy-to-exchange commodity,
or both. This commodity relates the value of all goods to one another; in other words, it is
money.
As Hans noted in [2007SP:281], the mere exchange of commodities does not imbue them
with value. Commodities are already endowed with value from the abstract labor that is
‘congealed’ inside them. The exchange of commodities simply make this value manifest. In
Hans’ words, “. . . circulation is necessary to tease the hidden value out of commodities.”
Modern economic thought takes commodities as universally exchangeable, and then introduces
money to make exchange more efficient. This views money as a sort of tool, separate
from commodities, that intermediates between supply and demand for a given commodity.
Marx would say that this is nonsense, because money is entwined with the exchange of
all commodities, and that it is the General value relation between all commodities that allows
the existence of money in the first place.
Message [129] referenced by [142]. Next Message by PrivateProperty is [134].

78 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
[142] Hans: First Function of Money. I’d like to repeat and emphasize what PrivateProperty
said in the last paragraph of [129], namely, that the main difference between mainstream
and Marxian monetary theory is that most (not all) mainstream theories of money derive
money from transaction costs, i.e., its use as means of circulation, while for Marx, the first
function of money is that of measure of value. Measure of value is a much more basic issue,
it is the compass needle by which businesses everywhere make their decisions. The archives
have occasional references to this, see for instance [2005fa:1001]. My next message will be
a Wall Street Journal editorial talking about the dangers of ddebauchment of the currency.
Such debauchment is so dangerous because value needs a reliable exterior measure. These
are the same issues which Marx addresses in section 3 of chapter One, when he derives
money as the most appropriate “expression of value.” If Keynes says that not one man in a
million is able to diagnose the damage done by currency debauchment, my explanation is
that they have not learnt to think in the framework Marx develops here.
Message [142] referenced by [2012fa:195]. Next Message by Hans is [143].
[143] Hans: The Dollar and the Market Mess. COMMENTARY by BILL WILBY
Wall Street Journal January 23, 2008; Page A25
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120105077515308369.html
Lenin was surely right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning
the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process
engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction,
and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.
– John Maynard Keynes
Currency debauchment is a choice. Most governments don’t want to debauch their currency
– it’s just that they don’t want to take the actions that might prevent it, because those
actions are perceived to be intolerably painful. Thus it was that last fall, the Federal Reserve,
the world’s central bank, decided to “let the dollar go” because staying the course on interest
rates might threaten the world’s financial system (or so the argument goes).
Meanwhile oil prices are high, inflation is considerably above the Fed’s own stated longterm
targets, and the dollar is in danger of losing its reserve currency status. Should we
care? Are saving the dollar and saving the global financial system mutually exclusive alternatives?
And isn’t a dollar decline necessary for “rebalancing” the U.S.’s external deficits?
The answer to the first question is a resounding yes, and to the last two questions, resounding
nos.
Why is a weak dollar bad for America? First of all, it directly pushes up oil and other
commodity prices by paying the producers with a depreciating piece of paper (thus removing
the incentive to increase production), while lowering local currency oil prices for the rest of
the world (thus increasing oil demand at the margin). It is no coincidence that the world’s two
great oil shocks in 1972-73 and 2004-2007 both came after long periods of off-balance-sheet
global monetary expansion and subsequent dollar weakness – the growth of the eurodollar
market in the late 1960s and 1970s, and the SIV and CDO expansion of the last several
years.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 79
Oil traders know this, and it is why the immediate consequence of the Fed’s earlier 50basis-point
cut was to take the dollar down and oil prices up. One could write a separate
essay on what a lower dollar and higher oil prices do to our strategic interests, such as
propping up regimes like those in Iran and Russia.
Second, a lower dollar reduces the wealth of the U.S. consumer in global terms, immediately
through the dollar’s lower purchasing power, and longer term through the erosive
impact of inflation. It hits retirees and those on fixed incomes particularly hard, and is a
totally counterproductive policy for a potentially weak consumer.
Third, the weaker dollar accelerates the growth of our competitors. China may be growing
at 11% or more in yuan terms, but their growth in U.S. dollars in 2007 was greater than
17%, and it is their dollar growth rate that is relevant for the rate of their rise in the world’s
economic hierarchy. Using Europe as another example, in 2002 U.S. nominal GDP was
nearly 10% larger than that of the Eurozone 15. Today it is 14.3% smaller. Although Europe
has been growing more slowly, its global economic power has been rising more rapidly than
that of the U.S. because of our falling greenback.
Finally, if America were to lose its reserve currency status because of a continued loss
of confidence in the dollar, the cost in terms of jobs and growth would be significant. The
real economic benefit conveyed by the right to print the accepted global currency is called
seignorage, which results in part from the lower capital cost we derive from foreigners’
willingness to hold dollar cash. This country has taken for granted the benefits of our global
seignorage for many years, and it is one of the reasons the U.S. has maintained a higher
growth rate than the world’s other mature economies.
But don’t we need a lower dollar to “correct” our large trade and current account deficits?
In the first place, our accounting deficits are largely with our own overseas subsidiaries (more
than 50% of world trade is intra-company trade) and reflect an increasingly globalized world
economy. Second, America is the shopping mall for the world. Because our distribution
system is the world’s most efficient, retail prices for the world’s goods are lower here, and we
have been the shopping destination for the world’s consumers even before the dollar began
its recent fall. These foreign purchases prop up retail sales (helping to explain the resilience
of the U.S. consumer), depress our measured savings rate, and result in an underreporting
of U.S. exports and an exaggerated measure of our imports (some significant share of our
imports are actually bought by foreigners).
The ability of currency moves to correct trade deficits or surpluses depends on the elasticity
of demand and supply. Because of increasingly specialized world trade, the elasticity
associated with our exports and imports are very low. Thus a falling dollar is likely to increase
the dollar amount of our imports (the infamous J-curve), and force the bulk of the
adjustment to currency moves into the “income effect” that results from our higher bills
(witness the impact of higher oil prices on the U.S. consumer). Moreover, our current account
deficit for a year is equal to only a fraction of the dollar’s foreign-exchange trades for
a day. To say that one is either the cause or consequence of the other is almost laughable.
Our external deficits are largely measures of Federal Reserve and banking-system liquidity
creation, just as the dollar’s exchange rate is a function of foreign trust in holding dollar

80 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
cash or near-cash balances as a monetary store of value (these balances are the lion’s share
of our so-called foreign debt). Thus, our deficits will only be ameliorated by a slowdown
in liquidity creation itself. Just such a slowdown is likely now underway as a result of the
mortgage crisis as we enter 2008, but any attempt by the Fed to ease at the expense of further
dollar declines will likely snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and risk a global inflation
of significant proportions over the next several years.
Doesn’t a failure to respond aggressively to the credit crisis by cutting rates too slowly
risk a recession, or a Japan-like breakdown of the world’s financial system? Unfortunately
the recession risk is high, but not because of high interest rates (which are currently negative
in real, after-tax terms). The recession risk is high because of a breakdown in the absurd
system that developed for the packaging and underwriting of debt, and the excess liquidity
that developed from the combination of that system and a highly stimulative monetary policy.
The Fed took a gamble on inflation to ward off what was perceived as a deflationary threat
in 2001-02. The inflationary consequences of that gamble are now here, with the petrodollar
monetary merry-go-round fueled by the weaker dollar. Those consequences will be much
easier to deal with now, rather than later. Unlike Japan, where the capital-markets risk was
concentrated in a handful of thinly capitalized large banks, the very growth of the creditderivatives
market that is the source of the current crisis in the U.S. has also resulted in a
wide dispersion of risk in the financial system, and any recession will likely be mild and
short.
While we might see a number of hedge funds and some isolated banks fail, the pool
of distressed asset buyers waiting in the wings would result in a needed consolidation of
the financial-services industry, without systemic failure. In the meantime, the systemic risk
posed by the failure of one or more of these institutions is minimal compared to the moral
hazard and longer-term inflation risks we incur from their bailout.
Sadly, the dimensions of the Fed’s great dilemma would be much less acute had the Fed
and Treasury officials not taken such a cavalier approach to the U.S. dollar over the past eight
years. Our “strong dollar” (wink, wink) policy has never been articulated by either institution
with any real conviction, and markets have rightly sensed that maintaining employment,
growth and stock-market happiness has begun to take precedence over maintaining the value
of money. In a world of fiat currencies, where trust is your most powerful policy tool, dollar
strength is a far better indicator as to the appropriate stance of monetary policy than “core”
inflation.
Any further loss of confidence in the U.S. currency will cost us dearly in terms of both
price stability and jobs in the long run, as it will imply a higher level of interest rates to
maintain a given monetary stance. A convincing elevation of the dollar in the policy priority
list for both the Fed and the Treasury would be the single greatest step that either institution
could take in restoring health to the financial system.
Mr. Wilby is a former head of equities at OppenheimerFunds.
Message [143] referenced by [2008fa:284]. Next Message by Hans is [144].
[484] Ken: exchange with or without money. Marx’s derivation of money would be
described by exchange without money and exchange with money. Exchange without money

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 81
would be the exchange between two people that want to exchange a commodity for a different
commodity that the other person has. For example, if a farmer who produces wheat
needed horse shoes for his animals, he would find a blacksmith who was in need of wheat.
The farmer and the blacksmith would decide how many bushels of wheat a pair of horseshoes
is worth. After a negotiation of the worth of the commodities was agreed upon, the
exchange of commodities would be settled.
The derivation of money in modern economics is generally exchange with money. It
doesn’t matter what money is made of, as long as people agree on the value of the money.
This allows people to exchange commodities without having to have a particular commodity
that the other person wants. The seller of the commodity can measure the value of the
commodity in money. Then the seller can exchange the commodity for money, having the
money be the intermediary.
Hans: In Marx, the first function of money is measure of value, while in most mainstream economics it is means
of circulation.
Next Message by Ken is [557].
Exam Question 239 is 166 in 2001fa, 184 in 2003fa, 211 in 2004fa, 207 in 2005fa, 227
in 2007SP, 250 in 2009fa, 277 in 2010fa, 245 in 2011fa, and 255 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 239 What is the difference between commodity fetishism and the fetish-like
character of commodities?
[149] CousinIt: (graded A) fetish and fetish-like character. This question does have
a simple answer: Commodity fetishism is the view from the subjective individual position
(individualistic idealism), whereas the fetish-like character of the commodity is the view
when one looks at the overall social structure of capitalism in which individuals fill predetermined
functional roles within the social structure dictated by the commodity as the
basic social unit.
Commodity fetishism is the mistaken belief that the physical properties of a commodity
as a use-value, such as a table, determine the social relations as they appear at the surface.
It is the same mistaken belief in appearances that causes people to think that the making
of tables in mass-production is natural because people buy lots of tables every day because
everybody needs tables so it is natural to make lots of tables all the time... i.e. circular
solipsism(?)... It is like believing that we need to control and exploit all possible petroleum
reserves because people need petroleum so we need to control petroluem reserves because
people need petroleum. It is not really that petroleum is needed but that some source of
energy is needed, yet we mistakenly insist that it is petroleum (as the preferred commodity)
that we need and see the control and exploitation of petroleum as the only and natural
outcome...again, a vicious circular reasoning.
We come to taking this kind of circular reasoning as ‘normal’ because of the fetishlike
character of the commodity in which the social relations of production are masked by
the transactions at the surface and thus mistake the surface relations as being natural...the
production of things as commodities (i.e. as ’things made for sale’) is mistaken as the production
of things as use-values. The commodity is mistaken as the only possible natural
outcome. The real relations are obscured by the notion that everything that is made for sale

82 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
(all commodity) stems from what people actually need. We mistake the commodity as the
only possible natural outcome of all human labor.
We are somehow blind to the fact that the making of things for sale is the cause of people
making things for sale.
Rather than recognizing this circularity, this outcome seems to be the most natural thing,
because we believe that the physical properties of the things (taken as they appear at the
surface) are the totality of their social relations. Because we fail to see underneath the
surface relations of commodities to the relations of production in a commodity economy,
we fail to recognize that what we take to be ‘natural’ is in fact a pathological distortion, a
dis-ease, a perversion, of natural human relations.
The commodity acts as the magical fetish-god that mysteriously determines yet simultaneously
masks all social relations. We mistakenly believe that all human social relations
naturally produce the commodity form. However, the emergence of the commodity is ‘natural’
(or ‘naturalized’ by way of ideology) only under capitalism. The fact that we do not see
this is the result of falling prey to the fetish-like character of the commodity which masks
the underlying reality of class exploitation.
Next Message by CousinIt is [155].
Question 241 is 213 in 2004fa, 209 in 2005fa, 229 in 2007SP, 234 in 2007fa, 239 in
2008fa, and 252 in 2009fa:
Question 241 If the commodity, empirically, is not mysterious, but its scientific analysis
reveals that it has a mysterious character, doesn’t this mean that the scientific analysis is
wrong?
[161] SnatchimusMaximus: content B form 95% A commodity may be empirically accepted
prima facie, whereas scientific analysis reveals that a commodity is entirely different.
When empirically studying an object, especially a commodity, societal norms, traditions,
and values are inevitably observed.
Empirical evidence simply is not exogenous. Carefully observing ice cubes while inside
of a freezer reveals that ice cubes are cold, square, and hard. Upon removing the ice cubes
from the freezer an entirely different set of observations are gathered. Likewise, analyzing
a commodity within in its predefined scope yields datum that appears empirically accurate.
Removing the commodity from its social environment yields a set of datum pertaining to the
commodity’s actual composition.
In conclusion, the empirical analysis of the commodity is correct inasmuch as the analysis
reflects the society in which the observation was made. The scientific analysis is also correct
in that it reveals the components of which the commodity is composed.
Message [161] referenced by [172]. Next Message by SnatchimusMaximus is [164].
[172] Hans: The simple empirics of shadows on the wall. SnatchismusMaximus’s example
of empirics in [161] may be familiar but it is not simple. Ice cubes behave completely
differently in the freezer than on the kitchen floor. This cries out for a scientific explanation
of what we see, why water is a liquid at certain temperatures and a solid at others. Modern
physics can give this explanation based on the molecular structure of H2O. Here the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 83
scientific approach is indeed, as SnatchismusMaximus says, to look at the components of
each water molecule. But this is not always the case; Marxists and many other social scientists
would say that, if you look at a society, a look at the components (methodological
individualism) is wrong.
Now assume we have phenomena which do not go through mysterious phase transitions
but which behave in a simple manner. Neoclassical economics explains commodities based
on use-values alone without need of the concept of value. Introductory Micro textbooks do
not begin with a rundown on things which you need to know but which you cannot see,
but they are a glorification of common sense. In more advanced courses you learn how
this simple theory can be formalized mathematically, and how it can be applied not only to
commodities but also to the decisions whom to marry and many other situations. It gives a
simple and systematic framework, isn’t this what a theory is supposed to do?
As a Marxist I would say, using FacistFranks’s cave analogy from [158]: the simplicity
of neoclassical economics is the simplicity of the shadows on the wall in the cave. It hides
what is really going on. And how can you tell that you are looking at shadows instead
of the real driving forces? The apple from the tree of knowledge, as I called it in [156],
is the recognition of contradictions, which say that more is going on than what you can
immediately see.
Next Message by Hans is [187].
[190] Hans: Unpredictability of markets. SnatchimusMaximus [164] is an optimist. He
says that commodities violate all the assumptions which made by modern economics in order
to model economic behavior: perfect information, rational consumers, perfect competition.
He optimistically is waiting for “a model ... that accurately explains how a commodity
operates.”
Averil [167] is a pessimist. He says the commodity is too abstract and intangible, it cannot
be predicted since “we have yet to figure out a way to see into the future.”
Let me reply to Averil first: it is possible to master nature without being able to look into
the future. We do not need a crystal ball, all we need is a physics book which explains the
natural laws underlying it all.
Am I therefore on the side of SnatchimusMaximus, am I advocating that we just need to
understand the propensity to consume better and other things in order to take the mystery
out of economics? No. There are people in mainstream economics (the efficient market
hypothesis) who say that markets are in principle unpredictable. SnatchimusMaximus’s
better model simply does not exist.
What does this have to do with the fetish-like character of the commodity? Marx says:
not only do humans not control markets but the markets control humans. By their efforts to
master the market, they do what capital needs them to do in order to grow. As I said in [156],
the economic agents are the marionettes carrying out what the system needs them to do.
Message [190] referenced by [202]. Next Message by Hans is [193].
Question 244 is 189 in 2003fa, 216 in 2004fa, and 232 in 2007SP:

84 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 244 Comment on the following statement: “After a long and tedious explanation
of the commodity, Marx surprises his reader at the end of chapter One with the assertion that
the commodity is mysterious. This is Marx’s last-ditch effort to drag commodity production
into the dirt, after his own analysis could not turn up much that is wrong with it. Ironically,
Marx admits here that his explanation of the commodity is less than satisfactory, since it
mystifies something that is really plain and simple.”
[154] Spawnblade: Is commodity itself really a mystery? Simply put, I agree with
this statement. Marx appears to be trying to overturn logic he previously created as to what
commodity is, and why it is understandable. He then tries to draw upon the unpredictable
behavior of the interactions between commodities in the economic system, and then try and
say it is mysterious. It is not mysterious, it is simply difficult to organize in a predictable
manner.
There is a very large difference between unpredictable, and mysterious. We’ve actually
been discussing this in my macroeconomics class, with the current state of the economy.
Remarkably it also came up in a social psychology class, dealing with the question of if
social science is a real science. They all relate in one crucial point: None of them can be
predicted at a 100% success rate. This is due to many factors that are unknown, or simply
impossible with our resources to take into account.
Macroeconomics informs us that we have general knowledge of the basic correlations of
the economy. It details the effects of increasing the money supply, or raising interest rates.
It also gives reasons that have been evident for recessions, and price drops. However, one of
its most important lessons is that no two trials are ever exactly the same. In that manner we
can never accurately predict it.
Yet Marx attempts to say that while the use-value of commodity is not “mysterious”, the
actual value of it is? I cannot see eye to eye on this, for I do not see a reasonable explanation.
If the entire economy is not a mystery, but merely understood that it is too complicated to
predict its behavior entirely, then why is the function of a table so mysterious? The time it
may have taken to turn a plank into a eating place is unimportant. It is simply time used,
that time could have been spent playing football or watching the Superbowl. Once an object
becomes a commodity, it is assigned a value. I understand Marx is attempting to give all
things a certain value without actually relying on capitalism and market demand to assign
it... However, what, if anything, is capable of altering a value more than demand? Demand
is the single-most important factor in determining the amount available of a commodity.
If there was only one hamburger left on an abandoned island, yet there were ten pints of
beer, and ten people. Would they choose the hamburger and live a bit longer, or would they
choose the alcohol in order to make the death more bearable? However if that hamburger
was just enough to keep them alive long enough for help to come, that hamburger would
gain a very large amount of value.
Perhaps I misunderstood what Marx was trying to do, however I do not believe it is
possible to claim it is mysterious, and provide that as a reason for taking away the value that
market demand gives commodities.
Message [154] referenced by [156]. Next Message by Spawnblade is [199].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 85
[156] Hans: What is Marx’s contribution? Didn’t he just turn something simple into a
complicated Hegelian construct, and now he is complaining that it is complicated?
To answer this, recall the readings of the very first week of this class, which I tried to
summarize in [32]: the simple view is untenable because it is contradictory. Marx says that
the exchange value of a commodity is simultaneously something inherent in the commodity
and something relative between commodities. Now the complication starts, because Marx’s
resolution of this contradiction is that exchange value is the manifestation on the market of
something that is really happening in production, namely, the allocation of human labor to
the specific products.
Marx showing us this contradiction is like Adam eating the apple and suddenly realizing
that he is naked, i.e., that he is at the same time a human and an animal. We are driven out
of the paradise in which everything is determined on the market, and in which everything is
fair and equitable. Spawnblade mourns the loss when he says in the last sentence of [154]
that Marx “takes away” the value created on the market by demand.
But the paradise Marx expelled us from was not run by God but by the devil, who bewitched
us into living in a world of illusions. By separating exchange-value from use-value
and attributing exchange-value to labor, Marx shows us the truth which we don’t like to see
but which we feel in our bones every day: that the labor process where we earn our living is
a huge ripoff. The market is the big blanket which hides the true nature of the transactions
between capitalist and laborer and makes them seem fair and equitable. The details of this
will be shown in chapter Six, but the basis for this is already laid now when Marx says that
value is created by labor, see my [33].
In the section about the fetish-like character of the commodity, Marx takes his critique
of the capitalist system to an even higher level. The problem is not the evil capitalists, but
the problem is that all humans, workers and capitalists, are only the marionettes carrying out
an automatic purpose built into the economic system which benefits nobody. Again, I must
refer you to future readings, this time chapter Four, for details, but the point which Marx
is trying to make already now is that there is an inversion of subject and object. Instead of
value being our product, we are the useful idiots toiling for a senseless and needless accumulation
of abstract wealth. 200 years ago this was a progressive historical device pushing
mankind to thoroughly reform the labor process and make it 1000 times more productive.
But now, instead of enjoying this productivity and benefiting from it we are relentlessly driving
on until we have suffocated the entire planet in a heat wave which will do away with the
conditions for human life as we know it.
The economic system has immersed us in a virtual reality. We are so preoccupied with
collecting points and zapping our virtual enemies that we do not realize that the entirety of
humankind is sitting in a liferaft floating towards the waterfall. We better wake up and look
at the real reality before the pull of the rapids makes rational concerted action impossible. I
am 63 now. When the chaos breaks out I will be either dead or so old that it does not really
matter to me. But chances are that for most of you this chaos will be a part of your lives. Now
is the time to educate yourselves about these issues and build the mass movement I talked
about in [71]. We can still turn it around, make it a Cuba-style “special period” for everyone,

86 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
which never sacrificed the protection of the poor, instead of Darfur, Iraq, and Palestine right
here in the United States. (We already got a little taste of it whith Katrina.)
Message [156] referenced by [158], [172], [190], and [202]. Next Message by Hans is [166].
[158] FacistFrank: House and plantation slaves. Maybe I’m only at a basic level here,
but I happen to be a fan of Plato. I was reminded of his cave analogy when Hans talked about
Marx awakening us to the fact that value is really determined by labor and nothing else, not
the markets, not use value, it is met with horror. At least when the consequences of this
shift in thinking are analyzed. Plato says that if one man were to be taken from the cave and
shown the blinding light of the sun, it would be the most painful thing he ever experienced in
his life. Then if he returned out of a sense of duty to the cave, and tried to free his comrades,
they would be shocked and horrified at the ideas he espoused. They would think that his
mind had become broken, they would hate him, maybe kill him.
I think that there is a lot to the idea that the man that lives in relative poverty who votes
for those that exploit him, is doing it because he can’t admit that he is not rich and important.
There is a stereotype that little guys talk the loudest and meanest, where big guys are gentle,
well I think it is somewhat true. The little guy talks so much because he is compensating
for something that he doesn’t have, he has convinced himself that he is powerful, the big
guy knows he is powerful, it is a fact like how the sun shines, he doesn’t have to brag about
it. Just replace big guy with the American capitalist elite, and little guy with poor exploited
weak guy that votes republican (sorry had to get my shot in!) however there is also the person
that sees the light and tries to fight and free his oppressed brothers, this is the person that has
accepted the truth.
Another analogy that I think works is the house slave and the plantation slave. The house
slave actually thinks he has it good because he gets to live in the basement, eat the leftover
food, and gets less beatings. The house slave loves his master, like a dog loves his owner,
where the plantation slave hates his master, and at the first opportunity will kill him. The
house slave sees how badly the plantation slave is treated and knows if he doesn’t protect
and obey his master he could turn into one, he is thankful, this is an analogy once used by
Malcolm X. It is also like CousinIt says, if the exploited man accepts the truth he won’t only
lose his entire idea of self worth (which in my opinion, if it becomes absent in a human
being, thats when suicidal behavior starts to manifest) he will also lose his nice spot in the
basement, and the better leftover food, he may even lose his life. Assuming of course that
Marx is correct that capitalism is truly exploitative and analogous to slavery.
I do have to disagree with CousinIt about an earlier claim he made, I think it was CousinIt
if not then I apologize. Anyone who has read any Nietzsche is aware of his will to power
ideas. I believe what was claimed earlier was that human beings are driven at their core
by an instinct to survive. Nietzsche says this is incorrect, because many human beings
march off into war voluntarily, and some commit suicide, some risk their very lives for other
things. According to Nietzsche they are risking their lives for power, those who go off to
war may risk their lives for a higher ideal (just a powerful idea used to gain power over
others) command of soldiers, glory, riches, fame, future political aspirations. Even the man
that votes in the exploiter thinks he is maximizing his power. They risk their lives all for
power, not to say that you have to risk your life for power, there are safer ways to gain it,

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 87
but to them at least power is more precious than life. This in his opinion and mine is what
drives a human to live, and perhaps may even be our purpose, if it is natural, then I believe
it must be right. Sometimes I scare myself when I talk about Nietzsche, because although
more different than same, the Nazis had a good deal in common with him philosophically.
I have a question, and perhaps this is oversimplified but is Marx saying that the entire
systems of Socialism and Capitalism, come from this seed: Capitalism evolves from a belief
that value is determined by markets, supply, demand, scarcity? And Socialism from the idea
that all value comes from labour put into the production?
Hans: The cave analogy is much better than my analogy of the paradise in [156], thank you for bringing this up.
Averil [176] also finds it very fitting.
Some of the things you are discussing belong into the psychology of how to fit oneself into an oppressive and
exploitative society, which is a sorely neglected field. A Marxist attempt is
http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/psych/0-contents.html
Message [158] referenced by [166] and [172]. Next Message by FacistFrank is [206].
[164] SnatchimusMaximus: content B+ form 95% The commodity truly is mysterious
in that it is said to play in the free market despite failing to satisfy all the open market
assumptions. Open market assumptions are as follows: 1) Perfect information, 2) Rational
behavior 3) Open markets.
Mystery I. A commodity lacks perfect information eo ipso of being a commodity. The
end user simply does not know all of materials, time, or processes that went into producing
said commodity. How can commodities operate in the free market without meeting the first
criteria? That is the first mystery of the commodity.
Mystery II. Not all users of the commodity act in rational ways. People who smoke know
that smoking kills. I think we all can agree that dying is a disutility. Why would anybody
use a commodity if it brings disutility? Commodities induce irrational behavior. That is the
second mystery of the commodity.
Mystery III. A truly open market does not exist today. As close as we are to obtaining
“free trade” through NAFTA, we are not quite there yet. How can a commodity operate and
self-acquiesce on a market that truly is not open? That is the third mystery of the commodity.
The explanation of the commodity will remain less than satisfactory until a model is
devised that accurately explains how a commodity operates. Until then, the commodity will
remain mysterious, and markets will remain “open.”
Message [164] referenced by [190]. Next Message by SnatchimusMaximus is [407].
[166] Hans: Capitalism covering its tracks. FacistFrank is asking in [158] whether
Capitalism evolves from a belief that value is determined by markets, supply,
demand, scarcity? And Socialism from the idea that all value comes
from labour put into the production?
My answer here is fourfold, two points about capitalism and two about socialism.
(a) Marx’s book is called Capital because he is writing a theory of capitalism, not socialism.
Marx says that in capitalism, market values are determined by labor content. I already
said that in [62], and I have to say it every semester, [2007SP:65] might be helpful.

88 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
(b) At Marx’s time, the economic mainstream held that value comes from labor. I.e., the
labor theory of value was associated with capitalism, not socialism. Only later, it became
discredited – a Marxist would say that the capitalists were trying to cover their tracks.
(c) Many kinds of socialism are thinkable, but an important feature shared by many socialist
models is that there is no property income in socialism, only labor income.
(d) But instead of having value based on labor, many socialist models want to get away
from value altogether. They are trying to allocate labor to the different industries according
to some conscious plan, instead of the products having to battle it out on the market after they
are produced. Socialism aims for production for the sake of use-value, instead of capitalism
with its production for the sake of value.
Next Message by Hans is [168].
[167] Averil: Re: Capitalism covering its tracks. In reading past responses to this
question I can’t help but agree with the similarities between Hans’s interpretation of Marx’s
views on the commodity and the capitalist market and Plato’s view of the universe. As said
before, Plato set the world into four different hierarchies with the lowest two levels having
especially imagined views of reality. Those unfortunate souls that were trapped in Plato’s
cave knew only the reality of the shadows that danced on the wall in front of them. They
knew no higher sense of truth and had no understanding to the true nature of what caused
the shadows, or indeed that they were merely seeing shadows. This is similar to Hans’s
statements concerning the nature of the market and how we are blinded by our economic
system and are unaware that the market is a ‘big blanket which hides the true nature of
the transactions between capitalist and laborer and makes them seem fair and equitable.’ It
seems that this could very well be the mystery that Marx is hinting at.
I am of the opinion that Marx found himself unable to fully explain the commodity, not
that his definition was lacking but that the concept is too abstract and intangible. I think
that an explanation of commodity, like so many other things in life, is rather difficult to
come by when examined closely and deeply. I am not sure that Marx really thought that the
explanation was plain and simple, I think he thought it was superficially plain and simple.
Question 256 is adept at listing a few plausible reasons that Marx may have said that the
commodity is mysterious, but many of the reasons seem to point to the unpredictability of
the market and of the commodity. This is all very reasonable, we have yet to figure out a way
to see into the future. Until the producer is supplied with perfect information about demand
and the buyer presented with perfect information about the supply and variety of products
available to them, mystery will prevail. Commodities would exist, though clearly not in the
same manner, in a socialist society. It is possible that Marx was simply commenting on
the difference of value on commodity between the two systems that made the commodity
mysterious. I admit, that is kind of a stretch, but I do not think that Marx was necessarily
trying to drag commodity through the dirt.
Hans: Products would exist in socialism, but they would not necessarily take the form of commodities.
Message [167] referenced by [190]. Next Message by Averil is [213].
[530] Alcameron: I disagree with the statement that Marx was unable to explain the plain
and simple idea of commodity production. I believe Marx understands as well as anyone the
principle of commodity production. He chooses to look beyond the surface but to a much

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 89
deeper meaning. I agree that Marx should have written that the commodity is mysterious
because he is simply showing that no one person’s analysis will unravel all that there is to
know about commodity production. If anything this statement gives validity to his analysis
because he understands and respects the depth of the principle. Lastly, I don’t believe his
explanation was long and tedious, rather thourough and in depth.
Hans: When Marx calls the commodity mysterious, he does not mean a lack of knowledge by the researcher. He
means an objective fact. Even mainstream economics, with the efficient market hypothesis, says that prices are
unpredictable. Marx puts a qualitative spin on it: commodities act as if they had their own life, independent of
humans.
Next Message by Alcameron is [576].
Exam Question 248 is 184 in 2002fa, 193 in 2003fa, 220 in 2004fa, 236 in 2007SP, 241
in 2007fa, 246 in 2008fa, 287 in 2010fa, and 270 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 248 Why does Marx explore the mysterious character of the commodity,
which is bland and abstract, instead of picking up one of the many striking outwardly mysterious
phenomena of capitalism?
[141] Alex: (graded B+) The mysterious character of a commodity reveals much about
true creation. However, no matter how the definition of a commodity is constructed it is
important to take into account how all aspects interact to create the commodity. Very often
economic theories and intuitions, though seemingly comprehensive, turn a blind eye to the
more importan aspects of “rational” expectations, actions and decisions. What is supposed
to be rational can be more cleary defined as self preserving.
Self preservation is one of the most important characteristics in economics, not to mention
other disciplines as well (probably most disciplines). “Human” rationalities are often given
a pass because as a society our standards are not held consistent. For instance, you wouldn’t
purposely steal from a retirement age woman. However, you might be willing to participtate
in insider trading which may end up hurting millions of retirement age women. The motto
“business is business” has become the status quo of capitalism. What that statement really
means is “I am going to get what I can regardless of who I hurt, as long as I can point to
the rules of business for justification.” Business has become an umbrella justification for bad
behavior. Just ask Bernie Ebbers.
This plays into Spawnblade’s discussion contribution [140]. How comprehensive is isolationism
and what are its social ramifications on a micro level. There is often much discussion
about macro policy and actions, but how different are macro choices from micro choices. We
are often governed by the same motivations and selfishness whether as a group or an individual.
Yet somehow when we act poorly as a group we somehow feel justified as we see
other participating as well. Corporatism is the evolving face of capitalism, which adds new
fuel to the “mysterious character” discussion.
So why is the examination of the mysterious commodity so important, more so even
than the discussion of capitalism? The commodity is intriguing, and truly is the root of
capitalism. Commodities are the seeds of capitalism, and provide a means for the creation of
the capitalist. This social structure has created classes in a democratic society. Commodities,
and therefore capitalism, provide a means whereby the rich still enslave the poor. Though

90 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
manufacturing and industry are less common today than in Marx’s time, the basic tenets
remain the same.
I believe all of this helps to explain why the mysterious commodity is more intriguing to
Marx than the mysterious capitalism. Poor behaviour can be blamed on capitalistic tendencies
which are fueled by commodities. However, the reaction to commodities are rational
human behaviour. However, capitalism has given man justification for behaving poorly.
Message [141] referenced by [147] and [436]. Next Message by Alex is [298].
[145] Hans: The economy more real than the planet. Yesterday I saw the global
warming documentary Everything’s cool
http://everythingscool.org/index.php
One of the persons interviewed in this movie, Bill McKibben, said that we treat the economy
as a real live being, we are concerned about its growth, we say it is in recovery, it needs
stimulation, there is contagion from the subprime credit market to all credits, etc. We look
at it like a child which we do not want to get sick. We are so concerned about the economy
that we find it more important than the real nature surrounding us. He continued that the
economy is predicated on it that our natural surroundings remain the same way as we are
used to, but we are in the process of drastically altering them.
According to Marx, this attitude, that we treat the economy as more real than nature, is
not caused by human shortsightedness or misplaced values, but its deepest reason lies in the
structure of the economy itself. We treat the economy like a living being (this behavior and
attitude he calls “commodity fetishism”) because the economy behaves like a living being
(this objective fact about the economy he calls the “fetish-like character” of commodity,
money, and capital).
Then he asks: why does the economy behave like a living being? And now question 248
kicks in. To answer this, he does not go to one of the obvious puzzles where the life-like
and “more powerful than nature” character of the economy manifests itself. I.e., he does
not try to explain why money grows when we put it into the bank, or why money, a little
smelly piece of paper, is able to buy use-values whose production has obviously required
real human and natural resources? Instead, he says, oh if we look carefully we see that
this mysterious life-like character is already in the commodities. And then he takes out his
looking glass and takes, at the end of a long chapter looking at the commodity, yet another
look from a slightly different angle, one might call it a meta-look, trying to explain the subtle
mysterious character of the commodity.
Question 248 is called “exam question,” i.e., it is supposed to have a short “right” answer,
which is often formulated in the Annotations right next to the question itself, and you are
required to know this answer. Indeed, the sentence in the Annotations right preceding this
question says:
The commodity already contains in an undeveloped form many of the determinations
of money and capital, and Marx asserts that also the outwardly
magical and self-acting characters of money and capital have their root in
the far more subtle mysteries of the commodity.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 91
How is this the answer to the question? For this I’d like to use the same metaphor Marx
used in the preface 89:3/o, namely, that the commodity is the economic cell form. If you
look at a human or any other living being it is easy to see that it grows. But it is hard
to explain why or how it grows. To understand this, you have to look at individual cells
and their partition. Or if you look at the human population, it is easy to see that there is
some similarity between parents and children. But in order to understand how this similarity
comes about, you have to look at the genetic code inside the cells, and the chemistry which
encodes it.
The same with the mysterious phenomena of money and capital. They are easy to see
but their true explanation requires us to step down to the cellular level. When Marx looks
at the mysterious character of the commodity, he looks therefore so-to-say at the genetic
code which expresses itself in the magical properties of money and the powerful self-acting
tendencies of capital.
Message [145] referenced by [2012fa:327]. Next Message by Hans is [147].
Question 249 is 123 in 1995WI, 134 in 1996sp, 137 in 1997ut, 164 in 2000fa, 186 in
2002fa, 194 in 2003fa, 221 in 2004fa, 242 in 2007fa, 247 in 2008fa, 260 in 2011fa, and
272 in 2012fa:
Question 249 Whether the commodity is “mysterious” or not is a value judgment which
can neither be proved nor disproved. Do you agree? What would Marx say about this?
[155] CousinIt: graded A value, judgement, and reality. In [2000fa:100-1] Hans comments
in regard to this question by drawing attention to the fact that none of the participants
answered the question by saying “yes, stating that the commodity is mysterious is a value
judgement and yes it can be proved.” This is what Marx would say. The fact that so few
people would answer the question in this way lays open an aspect of the ideology that we
are prone to succumb to under capitalism.
In [2000fa:100-1], Hans states “The theses that value assessments cannot be proved, that
nothing can be inherenty good or bad or sick or mysterious, is too ingrained in all of you -
and guess who benefits from it?”
The fact that we seem to believe that value judgements are merely subjective and are thus
unprovable is a matter of selective ideological investments that we are led to make, whether
we know we are making those investments or not. This is the same kind of error that one
makes who is not a capitalist (i.e. an owner of the means of production) who nonetheless
consistently votes for the political party that is interested in protecting and extending the
exploitative powers of the means-owning class.
If I am one of these people who are exploited laborers yet consistently vote for the laborexploiting
class’ interests, I vote for the class who is busy about profiting from their exploitation
of my labor as well as for the class that has exploited the labor of my family and
many other families in my class for many previous generations. I am voting for the one who
has stolen from me the value of my labor and of the labor of my family and my class for
generations. I am voting for the burgler who, aided by my blindness to my own material

92 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
relations, has robbed me, my family, and my class literally ‘blind.’ Yet, I think that somehow
protecting and making my exploiter/oppressor stronger is good for me and that anyone
who doesn’t agree with me is making a “subjective value judgement” that is being somehow
led astray by some pinko-leftist fallacy about what it means to be “free and equal.” (Frank
Zappa alluded to the provable value judgement of the notion of freedom in the title to one of
his albums called “Absolutely Free.” One is either free or not free. This is a value judgement
and it can be proved....sorry.)
The ideological investment of the exploited who votes for the exploiter is “too ingrained”
(to quote Hans). Why is it so impossible for me to say unequivocally that I am either free or
not free, equal or not equal to, etc., etc? Says who? By who’s assessment? The ideological
investment that prevents me from seeing that I am not free, that I am not equal, that I am
not exploited, etc., is the same investment that I make in equating my ability to buy Coke
instead of Pepsi, brown shoes instead of black, with being actually free.
I buy into the capitalist ideology because I do not want to acknowledge the truth (which
yes, IS a value judgement AND yes, it can be proved) that I am not a capitalist, I am exploited
by those who are capitalists, I am not free, I am a wage-slave, when I vote for the capitalist
class I vote for my enemies and the enemies of my family who constantly steal our labor, I
do not own the means of production or the rights to that which I produce through my labor,
I exist in an array of social relations that are unfair and stacked against me, etc., etc. I can’t
even see that I do not want to know this truth because the ability to make these kinds of
value judgements has been disabled by the ingraining in my mind and being of the preferred
ideology of the ruling class.
The main characteristic of the effects of my indoctrination is that I seem to willingly
accept my position and convince myself that the fact that I can shop at Walmart while others
in the world are living in shit up to their knees is a fair trade for what has been stolen
from me, my family, and my class for generations thus producing the relative poverty of my
position in relation to the capitalist. What is true is that my ability to make value judgements
is subjected to the authority of the ideological investments that I have made, consciously,
subconsciously, inadvertantly, by default, laziness, or otherwise. “The poor are poor because
they are lazy”, not because they are accidently/incidently in the wrong position, filling the
wrong role in the overall social structure which dictates that all roles, even the undesireable
ones, must be filled by someone.
We are indoctrinated to see value judgements as somehow untrue or unproveable because
it is in the best interests of the status quo that certain things remain unquestioned and unexamined.
If we were to question, examine, and understand our role in our own slavery, we
would be bound by honor to do something about it as failing to do so means that I am sellingout
my parents, their parents, my children and their children, as well as being a class-traitor
by my complicity in our collective class-slavery. It may be that I would rather be a slave that
enjoys an illusion of security than be a free revolutionary who recognizes and accepts a condition
of unrest, insecurity, and threat of violence at the hands of my former oppressors, in
the transition from slave to free human being in society with other free humans. It just easier
and (by some accounts that have swallowed the ideology lock, stock, and barrel) ‘smarter’
to buy the couch with the built-in refigerator, buy the HDTV, buy the Hummer, and sit down,

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 93
shut up, and rot intellectually as well as physically and spiritually while waiting for some
fantasy freedom that somewhere-out-there exists after my death-by-TV.
The truth about the mysterious nature of the commodity as the basic social unit in capitalism
is a value judgement and, as Marx sets out to do, is provable by way of scientific
investigation and reasoned analysis. This is the realist perspective.
Message [155] referenced by [216] and [2008fa:308]. Next Message by CousinIt is [227].
Question 251 is 197 in 2003fa, 224 in 2004fa, 219 in 2005fa, 239 in 2007SP, 249 in
2008fa, 263 in 2009fa, 291 in 2010fa, and 264 in 2011fa:
Question 251 Do you know production processes which do not require human effort?
[165] Clayon: Depending on technicalities, all “products” require some sort of human
effort. But if we move beyond the technicalities, we will see that products of Nature do not
require human effort. This includes land/real estate, water rights, and many natural resources
such as salt.
All these things require human effort in harvesting the good, but the actual production of
the original good did not require human effort. The list could continue with Sea Shells.
All food is also produced by nature, although it may be aided by human effort in cultivation,
or farming for both livestock and grain.
Hans: The question whether all use-values require human labor is a different question than whether there are
production processes which do not require human effort. In order to make this clearer I will re-formulate this
question in future Semesters to read:
Do you know production processes in which humans participate without having to spend any
effort?
This question was posed in the context of Marx’s assertion that every production process is essentially the expenditure
of human labor-power.
Next Message by Clayon is [234].
Question 256 is 152 in 1998WI, 170 in 2000fa, 201 in 2003fa, 296 in 2010fa, and 269 in
2011fa:
Question 256 Since use-value is not mysterious, the commodity’s mysterious character
must come from value.
a. Is a commodity mysterious because it takes labor, i.e., the expenditure of human brain,
nerves, muscles, etc., to produce it?
b. Is a commodity mysterious because the question how much time it takes to produce it is
relevant for society at large?
c. Is a commodity mysterious because the labors performed in a commodity-producing society
are part of an overall social labor process?
d. Is there another aspect of the value of the commodity which were overlooked here that
might be mysterious?
[148] Inter: Mysterious character of the commodity. According to Marx, the mysterious
aspect of the commodity cannot be answered by A, B, or C. Marx argues that there
is no mystery when people interact with one another. The mystery is when the contents of
the value determinations (abstract human labor, socially necessary labor-time, and exchange

94 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
value) are regulated by the interactions of the commodities in the economy as value. Or in
other words, Marx establishes that the mysterious aspect of the commodity exists when the
value determinations are placed in the context of a commodity producing society (the market).
Marx argues that the reason why this is mysterious is because it allows the commodities
to interact with each other.
Take for example a handcrafted bowl. The bowl is circular, with intricate patterns, and a
glossy orange glaze. All of these attributes are seen as belonging to the bowl even though
initially they were the attribute of labor in the production process. The fact that it took 8
labor hours to create this bowl is only reflected in the exchange-value, not in its use-value.
In addition, the 8 hours of labor that it took to create this bowl, are not grounded in the
nature of the bowl, meaning that no physical element of the bowl tells me that it took 8
hours. In a commodity driven society, in addition to the above mentioned attributes of the
bowl (circular shape, intricate patterns, and a glossy finish) the labor hours are also attached
as being another attribute of the bowl. So in our commodity driven society, the attributes of
the bowl are: circular shape, intricate patterns, glossy orange glaze, and 8 hours of human
labor. However, even though it took 8 hours of human labor to create this bowl, society is
the one who can place the value of the labor. Indeed, the form of the value of this bowl is
based off of the success of my marketing, not on the actual 8 hours of labor. The mysterious
aspect of the bowl comes when it is placed in this market, because it becomes distant from
the producer and relies on the marketing. It is distant from the producer because the amount
of time it took to produce the bowl does not matter, what matters is what society thinks it
took, which is dependent on the marketing campaign. What the bowl now comes into contact
with is other products, which are also distant from their producers and that are also relying
on their marketing. It is the interaction of this glossy orange bowl with other products that
creates the mystery.
Hans: This is excellent!
Message [148] referenced by [151]. Next Message by Inter is [162].
[151] Papageorgio: The mystery that lies within the commodity. First things first, we
know as the question states and as Marx tells us that the use value of the commodity is not
mysterious. This leaves us to figure out what part of the commodities value makes it mysterious
or “intricate”. We are told by Marx that the mystery lies within the actual commodity
itself, and not in our selfish ignorance. As we look at the commodity it is important to note
that the mysterious nature comes from a major component, no clarity and no control. If there
is control or clarity in an aspect of the commodity it is not mysterious to us.
Marx begins ruling out where the mysteriousness comes from, first ruling out A, labor and
expenditure of brain, muscles, etc. These all can definitely be found in societies which are far
from mysterious, and are all functions of the human organism. We also must rule out point
B as all societies must look at how labor time affects them at some point is development.
It is also important to rule out a social labor process as there is always interaction between
men who are working. As A, B, and C, are all proven not true by Marx, we must look at C
and try to figure out what is overlooked and is a mystifying quality of the commodity.
The contact of the products not the people is definitely mysterious. As we look at the
products we see “quasi physical properties” that are shown to us after our own labor. This is

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 95
what is mysterious to us about the form of the commodity. The mystery of the commodity is
not in its production but in itself. When a product interacts with other products is when the
mystery comes. The production, etc. only will affect the price or quantity made and is of no
mystery especially with the social interactions.
Hans: Everything is good except your very last sentence: the fact that production affects the price of the commodity,
and that the co-ordination of production goes through the price, and therefore is, as Inter says in [148], “distant”
from the producers, this is for Marx exactly the source of the mystery.
Inter’s answer came six hours before yours; therefore you should have referred to it and built on it (although I
admit Inter is a hard act to follow).
Next Message by Papageorgio is [157].
[152] Paul: Commodity and Mystery. Marx rules out the first 3 options so it must be
D. One of the possible sources of the mystery of the commodity is how it is compared with
other similar products. How these commodities are compared to one another can change the
price and value of a product. Products are given different characteristics given the time it
takes to produce, money it takes to produce, the demographic that it is marketed towards and
other things of this nature. The mystery is how any one of these characteristics can interact
with the others and raise/lower the final price of the commodity.
Message [152] referenced by [153]. Next Message by Paul is [159].
[153] Hans: Mystery of the market. Paul [152] sees the mystery in the market itself, in
the many factors determining the price of a commodity, while Marx sees the mystery in the
fact that market outcomes co-ordinate production, instead of production being co-ordinated
directly by producers and consumers. All the marketing strategies mentioned by Paul would
in Marx’s view not affect the value of the product. The value is given by the total labor time
going into the product and all its materials etc. It is already determined before the product
enters the market. Marketing strategies such as targeting specific demographics (so that
you can charge higher prices to wealthier consumers) try to influence the automatic camera
action I explained in [144] by which market prices reflect the invisible labor content. I.e.,
they try to raise prices above the values. Marx does not discuss such things in Capital but
assumes that prices and values coincide.
Next Message by Hans is [156].
[282] Bmellor: mysterous nature der warenform.. a. No and to prove that the mysterious
aspects of the commodity are indeed not mysterious because of labor Marx explains that
is doesn’t matter what useful labors are performed the truth is that “they are the result of the
working human organism i.e. the expenditure of human brain, nerves, etc...” which can be
found in societies that are not mysterious.
b. No Marx says the Following to prove his point “In all states of society, the labor-time
it costs to produce the means of substance must necessarily concern mankind, although not
to the same degree at different stages of development.” That means that the mystery cannot
come from labor-time. He is talking about society as a whole meaning that even societies
that are not mysterious must take labor into consideration.
c. No mystery here either. When people are not independent self sustaining “producers”
but production is part of the social fabric of which they are part, they must participate in
interpersonal interaction with these producers.

96 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
d. The mysterious character of a commodity does not come from those aspects of the core
structure of the economy; it comes from the commodity form. The mysterious character
stems from “objectified surface relations” this judiciously controls these basic facets.
Next Message by Bmellor is [283].
[296] FacistFrank: a. no, this is pretty straightforward
b. it is a relevant question, we must know this in order to determine its actual value,
like a measuring stick. The commodity tells us the actual price after it’s introduced to the
market and having been there for a certain amount of time. Our social interpretation become
equalized to the actual value. But i don’t see how this is mysterious.
c. i think it’s true, but i don’t see how this makes it mysterious.
d. By process of elimination this must be the case. Even after Marx concludes his chapter
on commodity he states the commodity still remain mysterious, perhaps how the labor makes
the leap from the worker to being in the product is what is mysterious?
Hans: What you say under b. is different than part b. of the question, and the fact that the labor time asserts its
relevance only long after the product has been produced and on the market is indeed mysterious.
Your d. is a good formulation. I tried to say more about this leap in [144].
Next Message by FacistFrank is [424].
[299] Alex: graded A a. No. The mysterious nature is not explained by labor or the use of
one’s faculties to produce it. This value is the worker’s cost, but does not totally affect the
value. It is important to note that production is an essential part of all commodities.
b. No. The mysterious nature is not in production. One could argue that the production is
the mysterious process which contributes to the mystery. But, the mystery is still contained
within the commodity itself.
c. The social labor process does not explain the mystery, though it is important to note
the mystery is a societal designation. However, it is not dependent on the labor process and
how it fits into the overall social labor process.
d. The most important aspect is something that is hinted at but never fully explained
in the proceeding components of this question. It is the society, over time, losing sight
of a commodity’s real use and value. The commodity is therefore assigned a value that is
mystical and fetish based.
Hans: Regarding your d., Marx would say this is only a symptom of the more basic mystery that social relations
take the form of material properties.
Next Message by Alex is [420].
[305] Inter: Revisiting the mystery. The answer to this question is d. The mysterious
aspect of the commodity comes from the distance it has from its producer, when it enters
the market. Because it is distant from its producer, it competes against other goods in the
market. It is this interaction with other goods that is the mystery of the commodity. In
essence, the mystery is when commodities coordinate production, not producers/consumers.
Next Message by Inter is [430].
[319] Sparky: There is another aspect of value that was overlooked when discussing the
commmodity, it is the mysterious nature of the commodity and how it expresses the inner
values that were placed in it during the labor process which created it and how it affects
the price of the commodity on the market. From the beginning materials to the final (end)

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 97
product, with everything that went into it, the wood or steel, etc. that has gone into the
product which came from nature, to the abstract labor power, and the socially necessary
labor-time that is associated with the end product. These factors are the contributions that
come into play when the product’s exchange value comes into the picture, when the product
has reached the open market and interacts with all other, similar, products and its value is
then placed on its socially constructed price tag.
Hans: In Marx’s theory, nature does not create value. Only labor creates value, because only labor is a cost to
society. Nature acts at no cost to society.
Next Message by Sparky is [320].
[321] PrivateProperty: The Mystery of the Commodity. A commodity is mysterious on
account of several reasons. Rather than sift through each option, I will lay the explanation
out as I see it (which is I hope how Marx sees it). The commodity is mysterious because
as soon as it is produced, the commodity escapes the control of the producer and enters an
interaction with other comodities. At this point, the labor (and thus value) is fixed in the
commodity, yet we see a great deal of post-production activity (marketing, for example) in a
perverse effort to distort exchange values. Perhaps the most mysterious aspect of all is that
the commodity is produced because of its “success” on the market, which then creates an
endless cycle of production for that commodity. The commodity, in the capitalist system,
perpetuates itself like DNA, as if it were uncontrolled by the very humans that produced it.
Hans: Excellent!
Next Message by PrivateProperty is [323].
[326] Scott: The mysterious character of the commodity. a. No, there is nothing
mysterious about labor. It was said in the homework that labor is the commodities father
and the earth is its mother. A commodity is produced by the earth and already has certain
characteristics like use-value. The laborer or the father is very necessary because it shapes
the commodity and allows those inherent abilities to come to life. Abstract labor is the
expenditure of the human brain, nerves, muscles, and it takes those things to bring about the
commodities.
b. No, there is nothing mysterious about labor time either. Labor time must be looked
at in every society because it deals with the social allocation of labor power. However, this
doesn’t make it mysterious.
c. No, the mysterious characteristic is not found here either. From the annotations we
read, “Whenever people are not self-sufficient producers, but production is part of the social
web; in which they find themselves, there must be social interactions between the producers.”
d. We find the mysterious part when we look at what is really being exchanged. The labor
that was put into the commodity is being traded in the social relationships of exchange.
Next Message by Scott is [439].
[365] Carterryan: The Mystery and Intrigue of the Commodity. According to Marx’s
theory you cannot determine the answer from A, B, or C but you have to determine the value
of the commodity from its use-value, labor value and exchange value in the community. It
will be a different value is each case.
An example of this is that one can trade 10 yards of silk for one fur coat. The coat will
definitely keep you warm in the winter if you live in a colder climate, more than the silk

98 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
spun into a coat would for use value for the one in the colder climate but a higher exchange
value if you lived in a warmer climate trading to colder climate because you have the supply
and the one in the colder climate has the demand.
If you lived in a warmer climate you would most likely prefer to trade the fur coat for the
silk because it would be a better commodity for you but more labor might be used to create
a silk coat or jacket so the value is factored by that, and that is what creates the mystery of
the commodity.
Next Message by Carterryan is [454].
[371] Mitternacht: graded A Mysterious character of a commodity. Marx establishes
that there is nothing mysterious about the use-value of a commodity, so he proceeds to
explore where its mysterious character comes from.
Firstly, he establishes that a commodity is not mysterious because it takes labor. Abstract
labor produces the value of things. Value is what drives social production and therefore,
even though the types of labor may vary they are more or less equal.
Nor is a commodity mysterious because the time it takes to produce it is relevant for
society at large. Time is concerned with the quantity of labor, but not the quality. Quantity
of labor is a simple measure that also does nothing to contribute to a mysterious quality.
The social interactions between laborers are also fairly straightforward. Production and
exchange of commodities does bring people into social relationships, but there is nothing
about these interactions themselves that would give a mysterious air to the commodity.
The mysterious nature emerges at the point that something takes the form of a commodity.
Something interesting takes place when the commodity-form arises – men’s labor becomes
reflected as objective characteristics of the products that they have made. In an abstracted
way men’s labor is being traded, but in the form of product created by the labor.
Next Message by Mitternacht is [374].
[377] Wasatch: a.
No. These characteristics of the production process “is entirely accessible to the senses”,
as Marx claims on page 156. We can witness with our senses the labor-power used in the
production process.
b.
No. Society must be concerned with the amount of time it takes to produce the commodity.
The amount of time required for production can be gauged and therefore is not
mysterious.
c.
No. When men work for each other “labor assumes a social form.” (pg. 160) The social
interactions required in the production process are not mysterious. It is something we can
see and experience.
d.
The mysterious aspect of the value of the commodity is the fact that the commodity
reflects back to society the human relations used to produce the commodity. The “value

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 99
material” of the commodity, which comes from society’s labor-power, is what is reflected
back to society along with the physical, tangible commodity.
Hans: Regarding (c), it is not only the interactions in each individual production process, but also the interactions
which allow the countless production processes to fit together.
Next Message by Wasatch is [756].
[406] Trailrunner: content A– late penalty 1% Labor (a), time (b) and labors performed
(c) do not affect the mystery of a product, thus we would not consider these to be answers
to the question of a mysterious character of a commodity. What we can recognize regarding
the mystery of a commodity is what the market outcome or market interaction result is, once
it has become distant from the producer. What is it that the market will see as the final value?
This is the mysterious character of the commodity.
Hans: The information projected on the market is an inverted image of what this information is about.
Next Message by Trailrunner is [441].
[411] Aaron: a) The annotations note that however varied the useful labors or productive
activities might be, it is a physiological truth that they came from humans in some shape or
form. Whether that original form was the function of the brain, the nerves that are working,
the muscles or tissues or anything else that originates with the human structure.
b) The quantity of labor here is and should be distinguishable from the quality of labor.
Any aspect of labor and commodity, the qualitative portion should be differentiated from
the quantitative. This distinction does not add to any mysteriousness of a commodity, as an
end user would not know exactly how much labor went into a product, in the qualitative or
quantitative sense. In a Marx society, the labor is a tool used to assess a commodity’s value.
c) When people in a society work for each other in any way, their labor must assume
a more social form. This means that people who work for someone other than strictly for
themselves, are producing something used in the society for everyone else. In this case, there
must be interactions and communications between different entities, in this case meaning
different people. There is no mystery involved in this interaction and social scene.
d) The one thing that I think may have been overlooked here in this discussion and explanation...
is the material used to make or produce a product. Different societies may value
different materials higher or lower than other societies and that must be accounted for when
discussing the possibilities of exchange value and purchasing a commodity.
Hans: Marx is not designing a “Marx society” but the society he is talking about is capitalism.
Next Message by Aaron is [550].
[589] Wade: A, A could be an answer, but it is proven not to be so we are taught that
commodities are used every day between us. A commodity is for sure an expenditure of
human brains, muscles nerves, etc.
B, B definitly is no, There is definitley a difference between the quantity of the labor or
the quality of the labor, labor time isn’t mysterious.
C, C It isn’t mysterious that when people can’t produce what they need they are part of
that social web that helps them tto exchange with the producers of whatever they need that
they are not able to produce themselves.
D, The second that a commodity is produced it becomes a mystery, the exchange between
the producers is what makes a commodity mysterious!!! All people have different wants.

100 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by Wade is [590].
[653] Nstew: (b) A commodity is mysterious because the time it takes to produce a
commodity is relevant for society at large. The reason for this is because Marx bases the
value of a commodity on the amount of labor that goes into it. Because of his theory that the
value of a commodity is based on the labor that goes into it, the value of the commodity is
mysterious to society at large because the amount of time spent on production.
Hans: Marx comes to a different conclusion: he says that the amount of time spent on production is not what
makes the commodity mysterious, because the time the different things cost must be of concern to all societies,
even those which do not trade commodities.
Next Message by Nstew is [657].
Question 264 is 135 in 1995WI, 112 in 1995ut, 145 in 1996sp, 152 in 1997WI, 159 in
1997sp, 152 in 1997ut, 202 in 2002fa, 209 in 2003fa, 237 in 2004fa, 232 in 2005fa, 257
in 2007fa, 278 in 2011fa, and 291 in 2012fa:
Question 264 Modern advertising specialists know that consumers often buy a certain
product not because they need this particular article, but because they are trying to compensate
for other unmet needs. These compensatory demands are important for the economy
because they are insatiable. Advertising addresses them whenever it suggests that social
recognition, happiness, etc. are connected with the possession of a certain object.
Is this what Marx meant by the “fetish-like character of the commodity,” or does it contradict
it, or would Marx’s theory give rise to amendments of this theory?
[146] Chris: our needs determined by modern day advertisers. I would first like to
explain my opinion on the goal of modern advertising, as it is crucial in answering this question.
It is of my opinion that modern day advertisers are trying to reach out to consumers’
unmet wants as opposed to their needs. I feel that advertisers try to make consumers think
that the commodity in which they are selling will fulfill a ‘need.’ I would say that most of the
time, the commodities being sold are actually fulfilling the consumers’ subconscious ‘want’
unbeknownst to them. I strongly agree that these demands are insatiable like the question
suggests. Consumers buy the commodities thinking they ‘need’ them and that they will fulfill
internal happiness. However, these commodities very often do not meet the consumers’
hopes.
In Hans lecture on Thursday night (01/31/08), he mentioned some very important issues
that correlate to answering this question. He mentioned that commodities do things that
people do not understand. I think this goes along with Marx’s idea about fetishism of the
commodity where he says on page 163, “a commodity appears at first sight an extremely
obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in
metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties.” Marx then goes on to explain how people
make use of items in nature (his wood example to make a table) to make a commodity. I
think this is where we would begin to see an amendment by Marx to the theory presented in
the question.
Consumers do not need the table in Marx’s example. The people need the wood because
they want to make a table. To go along with this example, we see modern day companies
creating commodities out of nature (i.e., wood for homes, wood for books, etc). The workers
have a blind devotion and compulsive use (fetishism) towards creating the commodities.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 101
I would think that to say insatiable wants are important for an economy would go against
Marxist thought. However, the fetishism involved in modern day advertising has strikingly
similar ties. Just as society is blind to creating the commodities, consumers are blind towards
modern day advertising. Consumers do not realize they are being sold on insatiable
wants. They think they are being sold on needs and that these commodities will lift hope
and happiness, only to come up short.
In conclusion, I think that Marx would amend the question to explain the differences
between needs and wants. He would also tie in direct examples of formulating commodities
and their fetish relations (as he does in his ‘The Fetishism of the Commodity and its Secret’).
I personally think that the fetishism of the commodities and their creation does correlate with
modern day advertising and their fetish appeal of commodities to the general consumer.
This fetish behavior is something that I feel we consumers should all be blatantly aware
of because these commodities are most often ‘wants’ and not ‘needs’ that will not fulfill
happiness as society has duped us into believing.
Hans: I wouldn’t go as far as saying that people don’t need tables, and you are sometimes a little rambling.
Marx definitely thinks that people should have things, even things which they may not strictly need, if they want
them and if society has enough wealth to produce them. But he wants them to make their choices in freedom, not
pushed by a social system which needs to produce stuff for growth. More details in [168].
Message [146] referenced by [168]. Next Message by Chris is [192].
[168] Hans: Can Marxists advocate lower consumption? Since workers produce much
more value than they receive in their paychecks, Marxists are reluctant to say that they
should consume less. But every time I teach this class I am struck by the willingness of the
participants to denounce consumerism. As Chris says in [146] we are duped into believing
we need many more things than we really need. More frugality is not only a moral issue but
a necessity if we want to preserve a hospitable environment: it is completely clear that less
consumption is necessary in order to get off the fossil fuel dependence.
Marx does not say that we should consume less or that we should only have what we
need. He wants people to have control over their lives and to make their own choices. But
it follows from his theory of the fetish-like character of commodities that in a saner society
people will probably want to consume less. I see two mechanisms here, one on the supply
side and one on the demand side for consumption goods:
(1) Our flourishing and well-being is not the goal of the economy, but consumption is one
of the marionette strings by which we are coaxed into doing what is good for the economy.
For instance the recent tax rebates are not given to benefit the consumers, but they are given
to benefit the economy. Raising sales numbers and making people happy are two different
things. If we design our own consumption plans, instead of being guinea pigs for corporate
advertising, we can expect to get a higher quality of life with fewer goods and much less
waste, and probably shorter working hours too.
(2) Capitalism isolates people; instead of people interacting socially, things interact on
the market. One might say things have stolen the social relations away from people. If
people take back their own social relations and co-operate directly, instead of allowing the
market to separate them, they will probably have more fulfilled social lives and again will
probably need fewer goods.
Message [168] referenced by [146]. Next Message by Hans is [172].

102 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 267 is 138 in 1995WI, 115 in 1995ut, 148 in 1996sp, 150 in 1996ut, 155 in
1997WI, 162 in 1997sp, 155 in 1997ut, 265 in 2008fa, 307 in 2010fa, and 294 in 2012fa:
Question 267 Make a thought experiment comparing market production, in which an artisan
produces something for sale, to community production, in which the same artisan knows
the people who will use the things he is producing, and these are the same people who
are producing the things the artisan is consuming. If you were this artisan, would you act
differently in the market situation than in the community situation? Would, over time, the
use-value of your product and the technology of your labor evolve differently in these two
situations?
[150] Trailrunner: graded A Art for a Community of Friends. If I were an artisan
creating things to be sold in the market vs. being sold to people that I knew from my
community, I would have a tendency to take more care with the item I was creating for those
that were in my community. As well, I would have the desire to create things that I know
would be needed and appreciated by these people. These personal relationships would help
to establish a knowledge of their needs, as well as their desires. Since Marx speaks of the
“inability to fetch an appropriate price as being based on two reasons: either the good is
not needed or the production methods are not efficient enough,” the knowledge based upon
dealing with these people would help eliminate at least one of these reasons – the good
would definitely be needed. I also believe that I would not want to provide someone with
a faulty or poorly made product, recognizing that they have most likely created something
that I will be using and they will have taken the same care in the creation of their product.
I do recognize that this is not always the case, but I think that in the long run, I would find
myself trading products only with others that took the same pride in their products as I do.
One positive aspect that I can see in creating things for a market of people that I don’t
know, would be that I might find myself with a bit more artistic freedom. Not knowing the
specific needs of someone else, I could quite possibly create things that I might not otherwise
create and it could be something truly wonderful. As well, not having a personal relationship
with these people gives me the freedom to not feel like the product has to be perfect, which
could help the creation process be more efficient. The negative that could arise would be that
I would create something that no one else had a need for and thus, the value of my creation
would be lost. I know that over time, an understanding of what would sell and what would
not, would be found and thus, I would begin to create based upon these sales.
My thought experiment thus brings me to this conclusion. Eventually, I would find a
balance in what I was creating for the market as well as the community. There would definitely
be common products, as well as a few unique products for each situation, but with
this balance, there would be greater efficiency in my production/labor process. As I created
more and more of these similar items, the creation of them would become more streamlined
– and I might find that I could hire people to help me with some of the processes. This of
course, still leaves open the option to continue to create things that are different and unique
and discover if they might also be needed, but I would have some basic products from which
to trade for the items that I desired to consume.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 103
Hans: Interesting thoughts. Just one remark about them. You are expecting that the market will be helpful and
supportive of your projects. This is not always the case. Especially in an era of globalization markets can be quite
incalculable.
Next Message by Trailrunner is [169].
Question 269 is 139 in 1995WI, 116 in 1995ut, 156 in 1997WI, 163 in 1997sp, 165 in
1998WI, 172 in 1999SP, 243 in 2004fa, and 263 in 2007fa:
Question 269 Give everyday examples of “material relations of persons” and “social relations
of things.”
[147] Hans: How to rob retired old ladies. My response to Alex’s [141] comes under this
question number because his example of insider trading strikes me as an excellent illustration
of what Marx calls “material relations of persons.”
If you have insider information you can go to the market and make profitable trades. It is
like opening a spigot with money flowing out. It looks like something objective and neutral,
and you do not see that the trading gains credited to your brokerage account are really taken
out of the pockets of retired old ladies.
Marx would call this a “material relation of persons” because it is a relation between you
and the retired old ladies which almost looks like a relation between you and nature. If you
intend to go into the woods to collect blueberries, it is good to have the information where
the blueberry patches lie. There is nothing wrong with having this information. Therefore
people think if they have information where the profitable trades lie in the stock market,
there is nothing wrong with this either. They are just taking advantage of an objective fact.
But as Alex correctly observes, what they are really doing is they are taking money out of
the wallets of old retired ladies.
Now if you wonder how we got to live in a society where one can rob retired old ladies
by just entering a purchase order into the computer based on information received over the
phone from a friend, Alex’s explanations have a different flavor than Marx’s own.
Alex basically says that people want to misbehave, and they use the business structure to
do it. A Marxist would call this explanation “voluntarism”: the intentions of the capitalists to
get rich turn this society into a bad society. Marx’s explanation, as usual, does not start with
the individual but with the social structure. Marx explains these long-distance robberies
by the fact that we live in a society which converts our social relations into a system in
which isolated individuals interact with a quasi-alive economy. The fetish-like character of
commodities is not consumerism but it is Marx’s terminus technicus for the fact that the
market relations binding us all together have their own dynamic, their own “life,” which is
beyond the control of the individuals.
One might think Marx’s explanation is more forgiving and optimistic because he does
not assume individuals are evil. In reality, Marx’s explanation is more pessimistic because it
gives individuals fewer choices. Even if all capitalists were to suddenly shed their greed, perhaps
because they finally realize that business as usual leads to inacceptable global warming,
they cannot, just by no longer being greedy, switch the economy over to a self-sustaining
no-growth path. They are caught in a system which cannot function and will simply break

104 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
down if there is no growth and no profit. Looking at the economy as a systemic issue is
not an excuse letting individuals off the hook, but it tells us the difficulties of getting the
economy under control. Marxists would say it cannot be done by individuals; individuals
have to consciously organize in order to achieve the necessary social changes.
Next Message by Hans is [153].
[318] Jason: My roommate has the habit of stealing from large chain stores such as
Smith’s or Walmart. His reasoning and justification for doing this in a society that frowns
upon theft is that he isn’t hurting anyone. Since it is a faceless corporation that makes
ridiculous amounts of money they can stand to lose a few avocados or a book. While it
may be true to some degree that his small acquisitions aren’t hurting the company’s profits,
what he fails to recognize is that companies take shoplifting into account even prior to them
feeling the effects of it. It usually results in higher prices for consumers or lower wages
for employees. Either way, by “sticking it to the man” he is indirectly hurting his fellow
man. You can be sure that the suits in the corporate office aren’t taking the hit for people
like my roommate stealing. This is an example of “material relations of persons” because
even though my roommate is only benefiting himself by stealing, he isn’t taking Walmart’s
employees or customers into account.
Hans: The company may not be able to recover all their theft losses by raising prices or lowering wages; it may
also go at the expense of profits. Would that change your argument?
Next Message by Jason is [452].
[336] Oldgreg: graded A– Marx is describing the the fetish-like character of producers in
capitalism with the descriptions “material relations of persons” and the “social relations of
things”. The “material relations of persons” is the everyday labor a producer uses to make a
commodity. A woodworker getting wood and making a chair would be a good example of
this. The “social relation of things” is the apparent value realized after the commodity is put
into a market. This would be when the woodworker sells the chair and realizes exchange
value for labor.
Hans: If a woodworker makes a chair out of a pile of wood, this is a material relation of a person, i.e., a relation
between a person and inanimate matter. But it is not under all circumstances the form taken by a social relation
between different people. If the woodworker sits in his basement and does it as a hobby, then it is only a relation
between him and the wood, not the conduit for any social relations he is involved in.
Only when the woodworker produces for a market, and therefore has to make the chair in a certain way which
allows it to be sold at a price that can support the woodworker’s livelihood, then he has to modify his labor process.
As Marx would say, his labor process obtains a double character, not only production of use-value, but at the same
time production of value, of that elusive immaterial substance inside the commodities. This would be an example
where the relationship between the woodworker and all other producers in society takes the form not of a direct
co-ordination and division of labor, but the form of each producer individually having a specific relation to the
objects they produce.
Another example would be the woodworker working for an employer. Much of the relationship between the
woodworker and his employer consists in the woodworker producing things, i.e., here too a social relation takes the
form of a relation between a human and a thing, i.e., a “material relation” of that human.
First Message by Oldgreg is [335].
[341] Matt: “Material relations of persons” would be based upon the interaction in the
labor process. For example, I have a “so called” friend that only calls me when he needs
help on his house. I never really talk to him other than for this purpose. The reason he calls
me is because he helped me on my house. Now he feels like he can call me and ask for help
whenever he feels like it. I feel like my labor is only being used as a service to him.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 105
Now if we take this same example, and I do receive money for my service (by some
miracle), this would be considered the “social relations of things.” This is because of the
relationship between money and service. On pg 172 the annotations say, “the validation of
their private labors as social labor, the reality test, and any practical activity necessary to reconcile
this after-the-fact reality with the already finished production, happens retroactively
through the success which the products have on the market”. . . through their exchange.
Next Message by Matt is [425].
[380] Bar: graded A material relations of persons and social relations of things. “Material
relations of persons” and “social relations of things” is in essence how the commodity transcends
exchange and becomes something very complex, it becomes a social relation form
material. What I find most astonishing about Marx is that he was the first Economist to realize
this relationship, yet since materialism, or capitalism it has been a reoccurring theme.
My favorite example of this is a gold digger, who for those who do not know is a woman
who marries a man for his money. The commodity in this case money, representing the
ability to acquire more commodities, replaces the social interaction of love and trust through
marriage as a material relation of a person. From this example, comes a plethora of realization
to the immense hold the commodity has on society. Looking back far from capitalist
society in another dimension where these relations don’t exist, a human being living in a
non commodity-linked society would not make decisions based on the increase or consumption
of a commodity, rather socially equitable decisions would be made. The person in our
society makes decisions based on how it will increase his commodities, and how this will
change his status. For example, most women and some men love jewelry especially diamonds
which are very expensive. Fake jewelry looking exactly the same as the real thing
doesn’t replace the demand for real jewelry. In this case the commodity replaces beauty
where they both look the same with scarcity. The commodity in the person’s eyes is better
because it is something that they have and someone else does not, it creates class in the society.
The commodity also controls desires, because it shapes desire. For example, if everyone
had the same option, or all the cars were exactly the same, the commodity would have no
social control over the person for desire to have a better car than someone else. There are
material relations of person and social relations of things in our society, almost all relations
under capitalism are because of this.
Next Message by Bar is [403].
[384] Brandon: graded B+ I stand by my original submission from the in-class exam
regarding the material relation between a teenager and his xbox 360.
However, the social relation I gave regarding gasoline was wrong. It should not be viewed
as a relationship between gasoline and the buyer/society buy rather the relation between
commodities. Using the classic linen:coat example, I will try to make that fit with gasoline.
Most simply the relation between crude oil and refined gasoline. Just as “20 feet of linen = 1
coat”, x amount of oil = 1 gallon of gasoline. This represents the social relationship between
things which complements the material relationships between things and their buyers. This
social relation will create the thing, in this case gasoline, which the buyer then perceives as
a material relation, between himself and the thing. His material relationship is that gasoline
is necessary for his vehicle to function.

106 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: Resubmissions are not addenda to your in-class exam but they should give the entire answer. You also
initially tried to submit both answers in the same email, which makes it difficult for me to feed them into the
archive. All this is clearly explained in the instructions for the resubmission.
Next Message by Brandon is [400].
[409] SnatchimusMaximus: content A late penalty 1% In a society dominated by commodity
production people begin to interact with the commodities, rather than with their fellow
human beings. This human-commodity interaction is known as commodity fetishism,
or the material relations of persons. Commodities, in return, interact with people in such a
commodity driven society and commodity-human interaction replaces human-human interaction.
This is referred to as the social relation of things, or the fetish like nature of commodities.
Commodities thus become the medium through which people interact with each
other. This human-commodity and commodity-human interaction creates a social disconnect
between humans and relationships with commodities eventually replace interpersonal
relationships.
As an example people in our society associate with each other by the type of car, size
of house, or type of clothes worn. These relationships with physical commodities replace
interpersonal relationships. These commodities interact with people, conferring notions of
status and prestige. Before the introduction of the commodity, the identities of mankind
relied on human-human relations, not human-commodity or commodity-human relations.
Hans: By social relations of things Marx means social relations between things, namely, the exchange-relations
between things.
Next Message by SnatchimusMaximus is [552].
Question 278 is 157 in 1996sp, 163 in 1997WI, 170 in 1997sp, 172 in 1998WI, 179 in
1999SP, 190 in 2000fa, 200 in 2001fa, 214 in 2002fa, 222 in 2003fa, 252 in 2004fa,
267 in 2007SP, 272 in 2007fa, 290 in 2009fa, 318 in 2010fa, 296 in 2011fa, and 309 in
2012fa:
Question 278 Explain Marx’s metaphor that “value does not have it written on its forehead
what it is.” Later in the commodity fetishism section, Marx uses the same metaphor “written
on the forehead” again in a slightly different context. Compare what he says that second
time with what he says here.
[215] Samantha: Value hinges on Labor. The meaning here is quite easy to understand,
Marx is explaining that is it “not obvious that value comes from labor.” (Hans [2007fa:129])
The value of an object is not written on its forehead, therefore it is subjective. Others (the
producers) see the labor and the product and do not consider it equal to the labor and product
of their good, instead they haggle over the value of a good, refusing to see that value comes
from labor. Marx then discusses the hieroglypics, which are the scientific methods that men
then devise because they cannot see that value hinges on labor.
The second mention to the ‘his forehead’ metaphor says, “These forms, which have it
written on their foreheads that they belong to the social formation in which the production
process has the mastery over men”. In this section Marx is upset that people are willing
to accept that “the production process has the mastery over men”. He laments that instead
of seeing value from labor (and those labor conditions) the people are seeing just a social
formation and are not asking the pertinent questions.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 107
The two references of this particular metaphor show that individuals are unable to ask
the questions which will show them where value comes from. Men instead look for other
explanations, hieroglypics or social formations of the production process, while the whole
time value for any product comes from labor.
Hans: This question will not be on the exam. It was submitted during the time when all questions are assigned in
preparation of the exam. But only those questions which were previously discussed will get grades, others will be
ungraded.
You say that in their haggling the traders are “refusing to see that value comes from labor.” They don’t have to
see this. See my [144] about this.
Regarding the second occurrence of “forehead,” Marx’s main lament is that people do not have control over
production. Their failure to ask the right questions just perpetuates the ideological fog coming along with this lack
of control.
Next Message by Samantha is [369].
Question 281 is 217 in 2002fa, 225 in 2003fa, 255 in 2004fa, 250 in 2005fa, 270 in
2007SP, 275 in 2007fa, 321 in 2010fa, 299 in 2011fa, and 312 in 2012fa:
Question 281 Marx criticizes in 166:2/o that even after the discovery of labor as the the
substance of value, this was generally considered an “immutable fact.” What else should
people have thought and done?
[174] Jenn: graded D Economics as a social SCIENCE. Marx provides a unique perspective
on a social science when pointing out the “immutable” property of the value assigned
to them. Since we exchange a higher number of unique commodities than we actually
produce ourselves, it is a seemingly natural paradigm to think of products only by their
exchange-value. As a result of this paradigm, it seems simple to calculate labor-time based
on the exchange-value. However, Marx points out that this is an essentially backward way
of calculating.
When stated, this point regarding the reverse inferred calculation, this seems an obvious
error. Although social sciences are not quite as straightforward as life sciences, it would
seem logical to take a more scientific approach and thought process. Commodities are a
production of labor, not vice-versa. One method that would have been appropriate to take at
the time of this “discovery” would have been to set up analyses comparing exchange-values
to labor-time. This is hard for one who has only ever witnessed a capitalist pricing system to
conceptualize, but perhaps if economists at that time had taken a more scientific approach,
the entire pricing structure of the world’s economy may have been different.
Hans: Sorry, this is completely off. Prices do not depend on what economists do. Please look at [62]. It seems you
had these misconceptions already in your earlier submissions, but it was never as clear as here.
Next Message by Jenn is [217].
Question 283 is 160 in 1996sp, 173 in 1997sp, 165 in 1997ut, 194 in 2000fa, 205 in
2001fa, 219 in 2002fa, 227 in 2003fa, 257 in 2004fa, 252 in 2005fa, 272 in 2007SP, 277
in 2007fa, 281 in 2008fa, 323 in 2010fa, 302 in 2011fa, and 315 in 2012fa:
Question 283 Commodity producers do not exchange their products because they consider
the labor in these products to be equal and therefore believe the fruits of the labor should
be distributed on an equal basis. Marx claims that, on the contrary, the market interactions
induce them to unknowingly equalize their labors. Describe the process by which they
equalize their labors, and the goals which they pursue in this process.

108 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
[199] Spawnblade: Forced Equality of Labor. First I’d like to address the question:
“...do not exchange their products... to be equal and therefore believe... distributed on an
equal basis.”
This bit confused me, because if they believed the labor in these products to be equal, then
they should not have an issue with exchanging the products presuming they benefited from
the trade. Unless that is what the question is indicating (That because it was equal there was
no reason for an exchange.) Yet that would be a relation to utility value of a commodity on a
person-to-person basis, and not on a forced equalization of labor. It’s due to this uncertainty
that I’d like to take a shot at pursuing the question, and perhaps failing it miserably, but at
least trying since I have seen no other current responses.
Attempting to look from Marx’s point of view, all commodities are commodities because
of the human labor that has taken place to form them. If this is the case, the commodity
itself should be impossible to judge its actual value (because of the mysterious quality that
human labor has shaped in it, according to Marx,) and due to the problem that producers have
with actually discerning the unknown value, they then ‘unknowingly equalize their labors’
based upon a standard comparison of time/effort/materials between themselves and other
producers. By doing this they form relationships in labor, price, etc, that they feel conforms
with the current ‘standard’, despite this standard being inefficient to the economy as a whole
because it is not a ‘true’ standard. The main goal in doing this would be to actually assign a
value to their commodity with the limited knowledge of its capabilities and uses they actually
have. A secondary goal might be the ‘fitting-in’ with society, and performing their tasks as
is culturally-acceptable. This reason isn’t as economically focused, but conformity plays a
large part in all aspects of human behavior. And due to the social nature of economics, and
the relationships of producers, it would be necessary to avoid alienation by conforming to a
standard system.
Hans: Please read [62] and [2007SP:65]. You are the best example of what Marx is talking about. You participate
in a capitalist market which, according to Marx, exchanges things by their labor content. But you are so utterly
unaware of this that, if someone tells you that this is what you are doing, you think this person is not talking about
you and the system you are living in, but about some mythical alternative society.
Next Message by Spawnblade is [328].
[211] Rey: content A+ form 95% Value is in the labor....Naturally! “Since the exchange
proportions seem to come from the nature of the product, and not from the labor process, the
producers try to escape the quantitative link between labor and value by producing that use
value and employ that production method which gives them the most favorable exchange for
the effort they put in.” This is the exact method in which the efforts of capitalist “to outwit
the law of value, implement it.” I will explain.
As the question states, “commodity producers do not exchange their products because
they consider the labor in these products to be equal. . . ” rather a commodity producer exchanges
based on their idea that value lies with in the nature of the product. In order to gain
something of a “naturally higher value” one must exchange a multitude of the “naturally
lower” valued products. It is this thought that drives a producer to invest time, talents and
money into discovering the most efficient way to produce a large quantity of a “naturally
lower” valued product. As this means is discovered the producer is now able to produce in
great volume of products that can be exchanged for “naturally higher” valued products. It

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 109
is however in this very process that they are upholding the idea that labor equals value. In
addition, the producer’s attention to quantity over quality only maintains the inferior relation
of the good that is easy to come by, and creates a need for more labor. This again reinforces
the idea that value is equal to labor.
Using a real life example one can explore the products used by Marx namely iron and
gold. Gold’s value does not come to it simply by its nature; rather its value comes from the
fact that it is rare in respect to other metals. It takes a great deal of time and effort to discover,
harvest and refine. Ore on the other hand can be found in abundance and due to its abundant
nature can be discovered, harvested and refined at a much lower costs to its producer. Thus
gold has the higher value. However because the commodity trader believes the value to be in
the nature of the product rather than the labor seeks to find a way to produce a higher quantity
more efficiently. It is this placement of quantity over quality that in fact keeps the ore inferior
to the gold. The ore becomes less valuable as it becomes more common and its production
easier. The producer may believe he is defeating the system because he has now found a
way to easily produce more ore, however this has only upheld the system. The system has
been upheld in two ways. One: The producer has now put forth the labor necessary for the
value of ore to equal the value of gold. Not only has this been done through the time spent
improving production, but also the improvement of production has now made it necessary to
produce more ore (the increase in efficiency of production has made it necessary to produce
more ore because as a product is more common and is more easily come by its value drops).
Which brings us to the second way in which the producer has upheld the system. Namely
it is now necessary to produce a higher quantity of ore, which obviously takes more labor,
thus upholding the idea that value is attached to labor.
Hans: Excellent thinking and eloquently formulated! But your original submission had too many little typos and
spelling errors. People will not take you seriously and give you credit as the deep thinker that you are if you have
lots of typos.
Message [211] referenced by [407]. Next Message by Rey is [212].
[239] Kevin: graded A Equal work does not equal value. Equalization of labor comes
from the fact that transactions are blind. As two blind producers go to gain, or increase
what they have relative to another, they unknowingly trade for something perceived to have
greater value than what they have already. This blind trade equalizes the value of labor
regardless of time or skill. In the end, in an attempt to out-perform/out-produce others all
processes become similar and all labor equal anyway. No one gains advantage over another.
Herein lies much destruction as a capitalist society looks to gain everything but in the end
gains nothing as a whole and in fact loses everything.
Next Message by Kevin is [470].
[344] Brody: I find this question too contradictory and confusing to answer. If producers
already consider their labor to be equal, how then do market interactions induce them to
unknowingly equalize their labors? Unfortunately this may only be a cop out on proper
preparation for this question but I still do not understand Marx’s argument here if producers
already believe labors to be equal?
Hans: They don’t believe their labors to be equal. They set their labors equal through their actions, by exchanging
the products of labor, but their individual motivation for the exchange is one of getting the best deal for themselves
rather than the solidarity of equal labor hinted at in the question.

110 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
This is my original answer to the test question. After further research I do now understand
the question and Marx’s hints towards self-fulfilling prophecies coming to life because of
producers’ actions on their reactions to prices.
Hans: This is still too vague and general; I cannot give you credit just for your assertion that you understand it
now, I need to see some evidence. I am looking for a concrete description of the process, as was for instance done
in [2007fa:133].
Next Message by Brody is [345].
[351] Ryoung: Equal Labor. The labor value equals themselves out according to Marx
because trading an apple for an apple means that the value for apple 1 is equal to the value
of apple 2 regardless of the labor that went into producing apple 1 and apple 2. The goals
which they pursue are to trade for the best values out there but when trading (like mentioned
above) labor input is being equalized.
Hans: Apples are not traded for apples. I think what you mean is: since all goods which have the same use-value
are considered equal on the market, this leads to it that the labor producing them is also equalized. This is indeed
Marx’s argument, but I wanted to hear more details about how “this leads to it.”
Next Message by Ryoung is [431].
[387] Clayon: Marx argues that market interactions induce producers to equalize their
labors unknowingly. This is done because it implies that no worker has been forced to
produce more goods than he is able (as is the case in a capitalist market), therefore all
workers in the market have put forth an equal amount of labor into their goods, giving them
equal value.
Exchange proportions do not come from the labor process, but rather the nature of the
product. This causes the producers to use a production method that gives them the most
return for their input of Labor. This conscious decision has the “unintended” result of integrating
their labor into the social division of labor, and causes the producers to have similar
labor processes. This creates an “equal value” for the good in terms of labor input.
If in a day’s work a person produces 2 sweaters, and another person produces 5 loaves of
bread, it can be said that those goods in that ratio have an equal input of labor, creating an
equal value.
Hans: About your sentence ”Exchange proportions do not come from the labor process, but rather the nature of
the product” see my [416].
Message [387] referenced by [416]. Next Message by Clayon is [609].
[389] Mick: graded B– The process of labor equalization that is employed by commodity
producers to measure labor fails to measure total amount of labor involved in the production
of their respective commodity(ies). The most commonly utilized methods such as time,
or quantity produced are unsuccessful measures of labor because they do not reflect the
abstract properties of labor used in producing a product such as mental anguish, physical
endangerment, and other comparatively abstract properties of labor. This practice of blatant
disregard for the more vague aspects of labor allows the capitalist to profit off of this unmeasured/uncompensated
value when he sells his products on the market place by throwing
a blanket over all labor, when he knows that the labors involved are diverse and of different
values. Common current techniques cannot be spun as a fair and logical basis for evaluating
labor. They exploitative.
Hans: When Marx speaks of equalization of labor, he not only means a measuring process, but he means that the
labor processes themselves are made equal or homogeneous, with no qualitative differences.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 111
We haven’t discussed wages and profits yet. At this point I can only say that your mental-anguish theory of
profits is different from Marx’s theory of profits. What you call “abstract labor” has no relationship with Marx’s
concept of abstract labor.
Next Message by Mick is [460].
Question 284 is 150 in 1995WI, 127 in 1995ut, 161 in 1996sp, 163 in 1996ut, 174 in
1997sp, 220 in 2002fa, 228 in 2003fa, 258 in 2004fa, 273 in 2007SP, 278 in 2007fa, 282
in 2008fa, 303 in 2011fa, and 317 in 2012fa:
Question 284 Someone says: The law of value cannot hold. We are free people, we do what
we want. We are not forced to price our commodities by their labor content. Explain to this
person, along the lines of the argument Marx uses here, that this myopic attempt to assert
one’s freedom leads to unfreedom.
[170] Sparky: Law of value and the “reset” button. The law of value is the necessary
social labor time that is needed to create commodities and the exchange proportions that
determine how much will be willingly traded in order to receive the commodities. When the
capitalist, and his free market, decide to get ahead of the rest by lowering the price if his
good compared to his competitors, “in order to get ahead” as the annotations put it, what he
really is doing is unknowingly pressing the “reset” button on the entire market for the good
he produces. He has set off a series of events in which the producers and consumers are
thrown into a place were the good’s values is socially changing, and to become competitive
– in order to survive – the other capitalists will begin to change production methods, force
more work out of fewer workers, or implement other cost saving methods in order to adjust
to the new market price for the good and still make money, creating a new necessary social
labor time that is accepted by the consumers.
This process shows how all actions are interconnected; how the “freedom” that is enjoyed
by the capitalist is really the exact opposite, that in order to survive he must obey the laws
that surround him and the market. Otherwise he will be put out of business for charging
more than and taking more time than is viewed to be required in the production of his goods
than other competitors.
Hans: EW in [2007SP:221] uses the word “reset,” and you are vividly describing this process. Just one comment
regarding your last paragraph: our lack of freedom does not come from the fact that we are interconnected, but
from the fact that we ignore this interconnection and, instead of co-ordinating our actions, only react to the social
properties of the commodities. This is like stirring in a wasp’s nest. Our actions bring forth powerful reactions
which maintain our state as prisoners of the market system.
Message [170] referenced by [171], [519], and [2008fa:392]. Next Message by Sparky is [225].
[171] Srichardson: graded A the law of value’s ability to hold. Marx says that this
narrow way of trying to achieve freedom will in the end result to unfreedom. In comment
[170] Sparky explains the theory in a way that is easier to understand, why this freedom is
in the end the opposite. The law of value must hold as long as there are the markets that
support it. If one tries to escape these markets by setting their own price they will perish in
the market. It is true that you can do what you want however you will not continue to survive
in the market if you choose to “assert one’s freedom”.
As [170] explains we are so dependent and tied into one another and when the “reset
button” is hit the events set into place are so dependent on what others do, and it is like a set

112 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
of dominos that hits the events set in place. In other words we are all dependent on the way
we interact with each other.
Marx believes that it is not possible to obtain these freedoms inside the market system
and it will not be until we move away from this type of market assistance until we obtain the
freedom that is talked about in this question.
Hans: Good response to [170]. You gently rectify Sparky’s misconception that the mere strength of our interdependence
is the source of our unfreedom. The word “myopic” in the question is relevant here. Our unfreedom
comes from us trying to manipulate our products rather than socially coordinating our production activities.
Next Message by Srichardson is [258].
Question 285 is 177 in 1998WI, 196 in 2000fa, 221 in 2002fa, 229 in 2003fa, 259 in
2004fa, 254 in 2005fa, 274 in 2007SP, 279 in 2007fa, 283 in 2008fa, 297 in 2009fa, 325
in 2010fa, 304 in 2011fa, and 304 in Answer:
Question 285 Isn’t there a blatant inconsistency in Marx’s text? At the beginning of paragraph
167:1/o, the fixity of commodity prices is stressed, while towards the end of the same
paragraph 167:1/o, Marx emphasizes that they fluctuate continually.
[177] Scott: Inconsistent or consistent? If you don’t analyze Marx’s paragraph 167:1/o
it would be simple to think that Marx is inconsistent with what he has written, but we find
out that he is consistent throughout the entire thing. From his text we find out that from
the invisible labor inside the commodity we are going to obtain the value. He emphasizes
the fixity of commodities in the beginning only to prove that it’s the invisible labor that sets
these prices. Once you know what your cost is going to be you can try to get the most out of
your commodity as you can. For example if I was the first person to produce cars I would be
able to control the price because I was the first person to make them. The consumers would
spend lots of money on them because they are new. Marx goes on and talks about fluctuation
because as time goes on more people will produce cars making the price go down.
Hans: I am amazed that an analysis of Marx’s paragraph 167:1/o brings you to this conclusion. Marx does not say
that the fixity comes from the product being new and there only being one supplier who can set prices. He writes
As soon as these proportions have attained a certain customary fixity, they seem to spring from
the nature of the products.
This does not look like something that is newly introduced, but something that has been traded for a long time.
Besides, Marx is using iron and gold as examples, not some newfangled use-value.
My quote also shows that for Marx, the fixity of exchange proportions is not proof that ”it’s the invisible labor
that sets these prices” (as you say), but on the contrary, this fixity makes it seem as if prices spring from the nature
of the products. Marx continues to argue that it is the fluctuations which lead to the recognition that prices are
driven by the adjustment of social labor time, just as the collapse of a house reveals the driving force of gravity.
Message [177] referenced by [193]. Next Message by Scott is [178].
[193] Hans: Imagine you are in a job interview. If you come up with brilliant ideas and
fresh perspectives from just cursorily following the text, I am happy about this and will give
you a good grade. But without doing the footwork, creativity can only get you so far; and
it’s possible that your creative ideas show that you have serious misunderstandings.
Many job interviews do not directly ask you: have your read this, do you know that?
Instead they sound like pleasant banter. Don’t be deceived by this. Your interviewers are
listening carefully which kind of knowledge and attitudes shine through on your end of the
conversation.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 113
Had [177] been a job inverview, the candidate would not have gotten the job. Here are
the highlights:
Job candidate: “If you don’t analyze Marx’s paragraph 167:1/o it would be simple to
think that Marx is inconsistent with what he has written, but we find out that he is consistent
throughout the entire thing.”
Interviewer thinking to himself: he knows that I like Marx, but he didn’t get it that Marx
does not shy away from contradictions but embraces contradictions.
Job candidate: “From his text we find out that” (and then comes a theory which has zero
correlation to Marx’s text).
Interviewer thinking to himself: He knows that I want people to read the text carefully but
this seems a little brash. How shall I deal with it? Shall I say I am surprised that he comes
to this conclusion? Calm down, use the word “amazed”, this sounds friendlier. And maybe
this has its upsides too. I will simply go through the text and show by letter and verse how
the candidate’s theory really correlates with Marx. This is another opportunity to explain
Marx’s reasoning.
If I made you curious, please look at my comments to [177].
Next Message by Hans is [214].
[213] Averil: An initial examination of paragraph 167:1/o would lead the casual observer
to think Marx is contradicting himself. Scott is right in saying that it is Marx emphasizing
the fixity of commodities only to prove that it is in fact labor that determines value. Marx
is asserting that it is the labor behind the production of the commodity that determines its
ultimate value. It is the magnitudes of value that are ever-changing, not the production cost
or value of the commodity itself. Labor-time emerges as the stabilizing force and measuring
stick by which we begin to assign value and magnitude to different commodities. Scott
calls it invisible labor, Marx calls it the secret hidden under the apparent shifting of values
in a marketplace. Here Marx subtly reinforcing his base assertion that labor is the unit
that everything must be measured. Though a market operates around a seemingly arbitrary
assigned value system, Marx proves that the value arrived at is based directly upon labortime.
Hans: You are referring to Scott’s original message but you seem to be ignoring the detailed feedback Scott received
from me. This affects your grade.
You are aware that it is a contradiction that market prices are so variable although they are the representation
of values which are much less changeable. Good for you that you didn’t fall for Scott’s shortcut resolution of the
contradiction, but I don’t see you offering your own resolution of the contradiction. Here is an attempt to resolve
this contradiction. Perhaps one can say: this variability comes from the fact that while expressing values, prices
also have the social function of adjusting private and spontaneous production to ever-changing demand.
First Message by Averil is [163].
Question 290 is 157 in 1995WI, 134 in 1995ut, 167 in 1996sp, 227 in 2002fa, 235 in
2003fa, 260 in 2005fa, 280 in 2007SP, 285 in 2007fa, 302 in 2009fa, 330 in 2010fa, and
309 in 2011fa:
Question 290 Why does Marx call Ricardo’s exchange between primitive fisherman and
primitive hunter a “Robinson Crusoe story”?

114 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
[210] Aaron: Robinson Crusoe. The reason Marx calls Ricardo’s exchange between
the primitive fisherman and the primitive hunter a Robinson Crusoe story is because the
fisherman and the hunter are allowed to determine the value of the spoils of their efforts
on their own. In Kapital, Marx relates a story of Robinson Crusoe while he is stranded on
the island. He collects a series of different objects that he finds from the shipwreck, and
“like a good Englishman,” says Marx, he began to keep a book or catalog of all the objects
he found, and how long it took to recover the object. Crusoe then uses this catalog system
to determine the “value” of each item. He is using the self determined wealth theory, in
which he determines his “wealth” by the time and effort of the labor used to get the final
product. All of the products that Robinson found came by labor exclusively from him and
became objects of utility for him and him alone. That is parallel with the reasoning for Marx
referring to the exchange between the fisherman and the hunter in primitive times.
Hans: Reading Marx’s passage about Robinson is necessary to answer this question, but you must put it together
with other insights about commodity production that can be found in other passages of Marx. As in [31], you are
reading individual sections of the readings but you can’t quite put the puzzle pieces together. I recommend that you
come to class or listen to the class recordings, because there I try to give an overview and connect everything. Look
at Jingle [2004fa:489] or my [2003fa:183] for a correct answer.
Next Message by Aaron is [222].
Question 291 is 135 in 1995ut, 228 in 2002fa, 236 in 2003fa, 281 in 2007SP, and 310 in
2011fa:
Question 291 Which “social” forms do the three determinations of value take in Robinson’s
one-man-society?
[181] Andy: The three determinations of value are labor-power, labor-time, and “the
existence of interactions between the producers through which their labors are integrated
into the social labor process”. However in Robinson’s situation, he is in a one man-society
which is impossible to have real social relations with anyone, or anything. Take for instance
labor-power and labor-time that only entails the energy or effort that Robinson himself puts
into it so therefore it may help him pass time by making/creating things he needs or wants,
however there is nothing social about it. Then take the third determination which says the
existence of interactions between the producers and there laborers. Robinson is the producer
and there are no laborers so there cannot possibly be any social relations in a one-man
society.
Hans: How do you come to the conclusion that Robinson cannot relate to things? And there is also a relationship
between Robinson today and Robinson tomorrow. Look at [2007SP:206] for what I consider the right answer to
this question.
Next Message by Andy is [233].
Question 295 is 180 in 1997WI, 187 in 1997sp, 232 in 2002fa, 240 in 2003fa, 290 in
2007fa, 307 in 2009fa, and 335 in 2010fa:
Question 295 Explain Marx’s statement that labor in medieval society did not take a social
form different from its natural form.
[169] Trailrunner: graded B Labor as a Commodity of Nature. It has been stated in
our readings that “the laws of nature remain unchanged regardless of what people do.” It
has also been stated that “people think they control the social powers of things, but this

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 115
is an illusion.” In speaking of medieval society, goods were traded based upon force and
exploitation, or you might say based upon masters and servants of the society. If we look at
the first two statements in this paragraph, it would seem to mean to me that people do not
control social powers, just as they do not change the laws of nature.
Because society was set up the way that it was, it was only natural for those of “servant”
status to provide labor to those of “master” status. This labor was a natural form of payment
for the dependence that servants had on their masters to be able to farm the land, live in their
homes, or whatever their personal situation may have been that kept them in a subservient
position. Just as an ounce of silver and an ounce of gold weigh the same in nature, a servant
providing labor for an opportunity to farm some land is the same in a society. It is an
exchange of something of value – labor taking the place of the commodity – and is not
something that the servant gives privately, but is something that is given socially.
By removing the thought of labor being something “private” that was given by the servant,
and opening it up to looking at it like it was simply another commodity, it is easy to see that
labor in medieval society was equally a social form as well as a natural form.
Message [169] referenced by [214]. Next Message by Trailrunner is [260].
[214] Hans: Social form of labor different from its natural form. If a serf had to work
for the landlord in the Middle Ages, he did not consider it an exchange relation but this was
something he was forced to do. Trailrunner [169] re-interprets it as an exchange, and says
that people considered it natural to trade labor. They were certainly told that this was the
natural order and they were not allowed to leave their god-ordained place in it, but this is not
what Marx means when he talks about “natural form of labor.”
In the Middle Ages there were strict rules who could do what, how many shoemakers
were allowed in the city, etc. This was a regulation of labor in its natural use-value form.
Nowadays, all that counts is whether the product can be sold, i.e., whether this labor can
hold its own in competition with all other labors. This is why Marx writes:
The natural form of labor, its particularity—and not, as in a society based on
commodity production, its universality—is here its immediate social form.
Related with this, money was much less important in the Middle Ages, most rents were
paid in kind (tithe). Marx writes:
There is no need for labor and its products to assume a fantastic form different
from their reality.
Next Message by Hans is [216].
Question 299 is 164 in 1995WI, 141 in 1995ut, 174 in 1996sp, 183 in 1997WI, 182 in
1997ut, 235 in 2002fa, 244 in 2003fa, 274 in 2004fa, 269 in 2005fa, 289 in 2007SP, 297
in 2008fa, 311 in 2009fa, 339 in 2010fa, 318 in 2011fa, and 332 in 2012fa:
Question 299 In what ways can Christianity and the commodity relation be considered
similar?

116 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
[173] Dyoung: Connection between Christianity and Commodity. I feel that there is a
connection between Christianity and the commodity relation. Like others I think it is only
valid with modern forms of religion.
We have learned from Marx that there is a relationship between useful labor and production
which give the commodity its value in the world. I think that Christianity offers a
similar idea that connects the body and the soul of an individual with the idea of purification
through a belief in Christ.
Which includes individuals living up to certain standards and a belief in human labor and
works to help themselves get into heaven. TimJim [2005fa:474] has a great quote from the
bible in Rev. 20:12 which says “...and the dead were judged out of those things which were
written in the book of life, according to their works.” I too know that many Christian sects
believe that after this life, the rest of eternity is judged upon the good works performed in
this life.
So having this understanding I think that there is a connection. Christian individuals are
like commodities in that they are given opportunities to perform human labor, for the hopes
of gaining a greater value in the next life. Christians have to give up their our desires to
make this happen.
I feel that it is just like the commodity that gains value from the labor that is put into
the production, which involves giving up the laborer’s hard work to the overall value of
the commodity, with the producer hoping for a more valuable commodity to be sold in the
market.
Message [173] referenced by [187]. Next Message by Dyoung is [176].
[184] Goethe: graded A Religion for sale, hurry before it is to late! The relationship
between the commodity and Christianity are very similar, and I will explain:
First we need to look at not just Christianity but all organized religion in general; we will
call this “the church”. (I am not being biased against the dominant religion; I am just using
“the church” as a metaphor for all religions)
The church needs to be productive and to create value, this value that the church offers is
on the outside very shiny and beautiful. What could be better than eternal happiness? In the
dark ages of Europe it has been stated that the goal of the labor of men is to achieve salvation.
Not much has changed, the common man who works hard to live a good life (according to
the gospel of his chosen faith) strives to achieve the very thing than a man wanted 500 years
ago. But the value desired is not a use value, it is not exchangeable, and it is not easily
measureable. The value is a social value, it is not as it appears. The faithful believers are
willing to give all they have, whether it is in the form of money or labor, most times both are
required. And while I am on the subject; the penalties for not giving are eternal damnation,
or worse (you might not get the invite to social activities). But the value here is intangible,
unknown, and based on faith.
The commodity has the same outer value placed on it as the church. We feel that we need
the newest i-pod, or the latest automobile, or even a coat. We will pay whatever we have
to acquire our wants, and even what we don’t have. So, do we really get what we pay for?
Some may say that we get utility from our purchases, but I would argue that utility is an

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 117
illusion. I look at the depth in which Marx has gone to explain the commodity, and like the
church one needs to have faith that Marx is correct. Hans told the story of the Emperor’s new
clothes last week; and has been on my mind since then. We are conditioned to believe what
we are told to believe, as long as it makes us feel good about ourselves. When we see that
our reality is not real anymore only then will we reach the next step in human development.
The commodity to me is even more complex then Marx makes it. At this point I am no
expert, but like the boy who noticed that the emperor had no clothes, it may be the novice
or the innocent that will have the ability to see beyond the social aspect of reality and open
the eyes of everyone. It has been mentioned that the true value of a commodity can be found
at the quantum level. I suppose the same could be said of religion; but we can in no way
examine these properties that I know of.
Conclusion:
Religion is a product that is packaged up real nicely and sold to the public as the answer
to all our needs. Like a commodity the true value is only known to the creator, or producer,
and outer value is determined by society.
Message [184] referenced by [187]. Next Message by Goethe is [185].
[187] Hans: Labor versus money. Dyoung says in [173] that commodity producers have
to work in order to get rewarded by the value of their product, just as Christians have to live
up to high standards in this life in order to get rewarded in the next life. This isn’t Marx’s
point. The following sentence by Dyoung explicitly denies the point which Marx tries to
make:
We have learned from Marx that there is a relationship between useful labor
and production which give the commodity its value in the world.
Can you spot what is wrong in this sentence? According to Marx’s theory, value does
not come from useful labor but from abstract labor. Labor is not recognized in its fullness
but it has to go through the purgatory of the market, it has to prove that it can be turned
into money, before it counts. In the same way, humans, in Christianity, are not seen in their
fullness, but only in their ability to abstract from certain human traits that are considered
no-no by religion.
When I was a student, before I became a Marxist, I read The Plague by Albert Camus.
One of the characters in this novel was trying to live like a saint, and his friend, Rieux, told
him: “I am trying to do something much more difficult than you, namely, be fully human.”
(quoted from memory). This is when I decided to leave the church, which in Germany had
the additional benefit that I no longer needed to pay church taxes.
I tried to explain the downsides of abstraction in [2005fa:476] but my rant about sexuality
in the second half of this submission created so much controversy that the first part tends
to be overlooked. (I thought it would be interesting for you to know that Marxists think
exploitation and oppression in capitalism also has a sexual dimension.)

118 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
As I am writing this, Goethe’s [184] came in. Goethe emphasizes a different aspect of
religion, not the abstraction. Many things can be said about religion. Prior to this Semester,
the most fruitful discussion was probably in the Fall of 2003. Look at my summary
[2003fa:233] of the main points made in that discussion.
Message [187] referenced by [203] and [2009fa:306]. Next Message by Hans is [190].
[203] Dentist: the perfectly competitive christian market. In searching the fall 2003
archives to this question in accordance with the advice from Hans [187], I came across the
entry from McRusho [2003fa:193], who offers a quotation from Marx, and Hans’s comments
regarding Mcrusho’s answer; I will draw upon both of these for my own answer.
First the Marx quotation which says, “Every religion which is not theirs is an invention
of man, while theirs is an emanation from God.” And secondly Hans, who says “Just as
religious proselytizers particularize and competitively push on each other what is ultimately
our shared spirituality, so do commodity traders privatize and push on each other what is
ultimately the product of our joint labor.” (if I proceed to misinterpret Hans, I apologize and
am sure he will correct me.)
Within the Christian society exists many different doctrines and many of them can conflict
with each other. As a result we now have a “perfectly competitive Christian market,” in
which each denomination produces its own “Christian commodity” from a collection of
the various doctrines that will not conflict with each other (in theory). These “Christian
commodities” are then taken and proselytized to each of us in what appears to be a quest
for monopolistic control over the Christian market. There is essentially a Christian trader
who tries to convince us that he has the one true commodity; that his commodity is the one
“emanation from God” and that all others are an “invention of man.”
The problem that lies with this is that ultimately they are trying to sell and resell us on
something we already own, our “common spirituality.” (Which I feel I should point out
here that this commonality is the idea that a savior is needed to obtain salvation). It is this
commonality upon which Christianity exists and therefore cannot do without.
This is comparable to our commodity producing society in that we are continuously being
“proselytized” from traders to accept their commodity. Just as the trader in the Christian
society tries to sell us, so also does this trader. Each goes about “particularizing” the minute
differences between his commodity and the competitors in an attempt to convince us that he
possesses the best of all the other commodities within a market, and that any other will be
insufficient for our needs.
As the Christian society ultimately has its shared foundation, so too does the commodity
producing society. Ultimately, it is our combined labor; the factor that each of us contributes
to the society and understands is one of the essential principles upon which the society is
established and cannot do without.
Hans: Very good. This is the kind of deep engagement with a different contribution which everyone has to do
twice in this Semester.
Next Message by Dentist is [208].
[205] Carterryan: Christianity and the commodity relation can be considered similar in
many different ways, one example is that they both need to be “sold” or taught to others. The
commodity needs to be presented and convinced that consumers would need to purchase

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 119
it. Christianity is related to this in that everyone needs a faith to sustain themselves and
people want to have hope and structure for their lives, the different forms of Christianity are
comparable to different commodities with the same use value.
Commodities can be either a want or need basis item for some, Christianity can be the
same. People might need for example a blanket to keep warm, others might not need a
blanket but they need a form of Christianity in their life to survive. Commodities like the
blanket come in different forms, shapes, sizes. Christianity is the same way in that it comes
in different forms each to conform to one’s personal wants or needs.
Hans: You are basically arguing, people are Christians because it is built into their utility function to be Christians.
This is the kind of tautological reductionism which mainstream economics excels in and which this class is trying
to get away from. Sorry for the harsh words, this is not meant personally, it is a critique of the education you all are
receiving rather than a critique of your own intelligence.
Next Message by Carterryan is [364].
[209] PrivateProperty: Christianity and the Commodity Relation. If we look at the
doctrine of Christianity as a commodity (and by doctrine I mean the sum of writings and
teachings that Christians study as their religious canon), we can see that there is actually a
lot of value imbued in it. It has taken a lot of labor to produce the books that comprise the
New and Old Testaments, as well as to translate them over the centuries into The Bible that
we have today. If we take the events depicted in The Bible (assuming they actually occurred)
also as labor, this is even more value imparted to the commodity.
Let me shift gears and address Christianity in a different light, by viewing the individual
as the commodity.
In Capitalism, the producer views a commodity in terms of its value, as if it were inherent
in the commodity itself, when in fact the value is ‘brought out’ of the commodity through
its exchange relations with other commodities. The producer makes the mistake of viewing
every commodity as individualized representations of the same thing (value). Marx introduces
a metaphor to show how bizarre this is: “It is as if, besides lions, tigers, hares, and
all other real animals, . . . also the animal existed, the individual incarnation of the whole
animal kingdom.”
In Christianity, it is easy to see that God represents this bizarre concept of the animal.
Instead of being “the individual incarnation of the whole animal kingdom”, God is the individual
incarnation of the whole human race. In Capitalism it is the producer who makes
this mistake. In Christianity, who would our ‘producers’ be? Well, it would be any Christian
who sees individuals as representative of God without looking at their social or ‘exchange’
relations. In reality, it is an individual’s behavior and interaction with his fellow men that
‘brings out’ his or her ‘God-ness’ (perhaps a better word would be ‘divinity’), which is an
expression of this person’s value within the Christian economy.
Hans: Your first paragraph is based on a misunderstanding. Being a value and being a product of labor are two
completely different things. Only those products of labor which wear the labor used up to produce them as an
immaterial garment like the emperor’s new clothes are values. About what you say after you “shift gears” see my
[216].
Message [209] referenced by [216] and [323]. Next Message by PrivateProperty is [221].
Question 300 is 210 in 2000fa and 312 in 2009fa:

120 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 300 In the sentence: “[The ancient social production-organisms] are conditioned
by a low stage of development of the productive powers of labor, and by correspondingly
limited relations of men within the process of creating and reproducing their material life,
hence also between each other and between man and nature,” Marx describes the relationship
between the following three: productive forces (i.e., technology), the relations {2} in the
production process, and social relations {1} at large. Rephrase this relationship in your own
words.
[191] Mitternacht: content A form 95% Marx decides to use the example of ancient
social production organisms because it is much simpler to analyze since it does not have all
of the layers that are found in bourgeois society.
The laborers in this case are either tied to their species-connection with other men which
Marx calls “immature”, or they are involved in a more direct dominance and servitude relationship.
Felix [2000fa:73] does a great job of succinctly explaining that understanding social relations
must begin by first “looking at material conditions or technology”.
The ancient social production organism has a low stage of development (limited technology),
which means that production is limited. Since there is limited output, it follows that
there are limited relations between man within the process of production. In turn the limited
interaction between man in the production process impacts social relations at large.
Next Message by Mitternacht is [196].
Question 302 is 277 in 2004fa, 272 in 2005fa, 292 in 2007SP, 297 in 2007fa, 300 in
2008fa, 314 in 2009fa, and 342 in 2010fa:
Question 302 Can labor be measured in other ways than in time?
[176] Dyoung: Does Labor = Time. This is a great question that really makes you think.
At first I would have to agree with AJ [2007SP:232] and say Yes because you can measure
labor in opportunity costs of workers, by the productivity of those workers. But even if you
measure labor this way it comes down to how fast the worker is able to perform the job or
how long it takes, which is where the value or price comes from.
So then I would say No, because labor needs to be measured in time because labor is
paid to the worker based on time spent laboring on the commodity. It has also been said
that perhaps labor can be measured based on effort but I don’t agree with that either because
even if good solid effort is put into labor over a certain item, if I can hire an individual who
can do the same job faster then that first worker wouldn’t have a job any longer. We live in
a society where time is money. Time is king.
However, human labor is very important in Marxian economics, for Marx labor measured
in time is the determinant of value in a commodity says Ricky [2007fa:135] who brings up
a great point that one could measure labor in terms of output. This makes a lot of sense to
me because I labor in an industry where I am strictly paid on commissions so my income is
based on my output of goods in a certain month.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 121
Output in my mind is the best way to measure labor but then it comes back to how much
time did I spend trying to produce the output.
Time is the only way to measure labor.
Hans: “Says Ricky who ...” is not a proper construction for written text. Also the sentence starting with “It has
also been said that perhaps ...” should have been broken up at least into two.
You say that the worker’s pay is based on labor time performed. This is not necessarily so, it depends on the
society. Marx says that it is an illusion to think that in capitalism wages are based on labor performed, we will get
to this in the later readings. (It is also an illusion to think capitalism is a meritocracy.)
You bring several interesting points which cry out for more discussion. It’s probably not an accident that your
submission was the start of a long conversation.
Message [176] referenced by [158] and [208]. Next Message by Dyoung is [261].
[179] Papageorgio: Labor-time. Marx speaks of Labor a lot in the second half of 1.4 we
read this week for class. Marx tells us that labor must be measured by time. Labor time is a
very important factor in the deciding the value of the product and is the best way to measure
labor. Specifically in concrete or abstract labor time is still the key that we should measure
by. Measure of labor helps us to see how much we value anything and specifically say a
commodity. If we value a commodity by how much effort went into it everything would
change it would all depend on who made it, a strong or weak person, etc. Labor-time is
consistent.
Marx helps us see abstractly that labor does not need to be judged by blood, sweat, and
tears. This would be inconsistent and this would be different in different markets and such.
Time is most important to all, the buyer the seller, etc, even the people who create the product
value the time they put into it a great deal.
Marx makes it easy to see that the only way to measure labor is by time.
Hans: Marx does not say that labor “must” be measured in time, but that commodity society treats all labor as
equal and measures it in time. The value of the product is not decided by anyone, but the word “value,” as used by
Marx, represents the congealed abstract labor in the product, perhaps [2003fa:133] will be helpful to you. Marx’s
concept of value also does not depend on the disutility of labor, see my comment to [2004fa:633] and the entire
discussion there.
Next Message by Papageorgio is [180].
[182] Slash: Labor and time go hand and hand. Labor is best measured in time. To
describe labor using other means comes up short of measurably. Time is the same no matter
how hard one works, or how back-breaking the labor is during any given time. When a
commodity is produced materials, effort and location can vary, but time can not. One hour
is one hour no matter what is being produced. For the simple reason that time is a constant
and can be measured, all other means of measuring fall short.
Time is important to both the producer and the consumer, because of this Marx say time
is measurable, and the means by which labor is measured.
Hans: You sound as if Marx picked a practical and relevant measure for labor. When Marx says that labor is
measured in time, he means that the organization of production in a commdity society is such that labor is measured
in time. This is not something decided on because it is “best” but it is built into our social structure. Is it really
“best” to ignore how hard the laborer works or how backbreaking the labor is?
People living in this society tend to think it is best because that’s what they are familiar with, and that’s what
fits together with the other institutions in this society. You seem to tacitly assume that all labor must be considered
equal. Commodity society does this, but societies could be set up differently.
Next Message by Slash is [183].

122 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
[186] Paul: How to value labor. It is interesting to consider another way to value labor.
You could argue that the intensity in which the labor was performed would have an effect on
the value of the labor. For example, if somebody is working in awful conditions and going at
his absolute limit his work should be valued at a higher level than someone who is working
at half the pace he is capable. This makes sense and you would hope that this would be the
case. The fact is that it is impossible to put this kind of factor into the value of labor.
The old saying is that time equals money. Its true and everyone understands that. Everybody
understands the value of time and everyone knows that one hour equals 60 minutes.
Time is universally understood, therefore it is the best way to determine the value of labor.
Hans: There are two reasons why one would want to measure labor. Either because one is interested in the value
created by that labor, or because one wants to compute the value of labor, i.e., the compensation of a wage-laborer.
In Marx’s theory, these two are quantitatively different, i.e., the labor created by the laborer is much greater than
his compensation.
In chapter One, Marx has not yet introduced the wage laborer, therefore he is only talking about the first reason,
the value created by labor, not the value of labor. Also the previous answers to question 302 saw it this way. You
are redefining the question and switching to the value of labor, i.e., the second reason. This is clearly not what Marx
is talking about. The questions must always be seen in the context of Marx’s text.
But your point with the intensity is a good one, even if one only looks at the value-creating capacity of labor. In
chapter Seventeen, 660:2/o, Marx says that labor of higher intensity is the expenditure of more labor per hour. One
might say labor is still measured by time, only the meter runs faster if the intensity is higher.
Message [186] referenced by [188]. Next Message by Paul is [189].
[188] Wade: Certainly labor could be measured in many other ways than in time. But
would it be completely fair? What if someone didn’t have the same capabilities as another,
should they be paid the same amount? Should they be paid on what they produce? Probably,
but what if they don’t have the same capabilities? Let’s say that a mentally retarded man
was working on a labor line, if he can only produce 50 of whatever they are producing,
but a gifted man can produce 200, should they be paid the same? You could pay them on
whatever they are producing, but by doing so the mentally retarted man would only make a
fourth as the gifted man would working the same amount of time. It is a tough call, it would
work out great if you could pay them according to their abilities and the quality and quantity
of what they produce and the amount of time they put in, that would be extremely hard to
accomplish. So the safest and most fair manner in most all cases would be to just pay by
good old father time.
Hans: Like Paul [186], you are not looking at the value-creating capacity of labor but only on the compensation of
the wage laborer – although Marx has not even introduced the wage laborer yet.
Message [188] referenced by [200] and [228]. Next Message by Wade is [554].
[200] PrivateProperty: In response to Wade’s [188]: If we’re following a Marxist line
of thinking, and we’re talking about congealed abstract labor, then time is the only way to
measure it. For in this case, labor is akin to a standard unit of measurement (like a kilogram
or a meter) of the expenditure of labor-power, and thus time.
It doesn’t follow that we adopt this line of thinking when looking at individual production.
A retarded man producing 50 and a gifted man producing 200 should not be paid the same.
Either the retarded man should be fired or the gifted man should be paid more, or both. This
is referring to the compensation of the individuals. The actual value that is imparted to these
commodities, however, is something entirely different.
Next Message by PrivateProperty is [201].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 123
[208] Dentist: Warning: clichés inside. It seems as though we are in consensus that time
may not be the ONLY way to measure labor, but that under our society it is the simplest,
most constant and therefore best measure. But I have some thoughts as to why this may be
so.
“Time is money” has certainly become quite the cliché and rightly so according to the
principles of the society in which we live. In fact I am inclined to believe that money trumps
even time these days, as indicated by the fact that Americans are working more hours per
day and days per year than ever. We are willing to do more to obtain money these days then
we are to retain our time.
Certainly the argument can be made that this is due to necessity and this extra labor is
being spent in order to survive. To one who may make this case I have another cliché, “The
luxuries of one generation become the necessities of the next.” For instance, even those
considered to be living in poverty these days, the majority still possess “necessities” like
television and cellular phones.
But in getting to the point, perhaps the ideas of labor being measured in terms of output
or opportunity cost would not be so unrealistic if our society were not so consumed with
consuming (the negative saving rate of Americans makes a good example). AJ [2007SP:232]
and Hans [2007SP:243] have some interesting discussion regarding these a ideas and some
of their associated problems which Dyoung [176] also seems to touch on.
One problem with measuring according to productivity or output is brought to our attention
by Hans [2007SP:243], which is the issue of the learning curve. It would seem possible
to deal with by analyzing the daily output of an employee, and plotting them graphically.
Theoretically over time the slope of the function would gradually decrease and with time
approach a 0 slope. This would essentially indicate that the learning curve is over and could
give a good starting point for identifying ideal levels of production for an individual. Similarly,
taking some averages of the time for this to occur with several employees could give
insights into how long we can expect the learning to last.
There is still yet another problem with using opportunity cost or productivity that is also
discussed in the prior references, which is that of measuring effort. Although more difficult,
it may be possible if certain conditions are met. For instance happy workers are productive
and therefore more efficient workers. Perhaps a social structure where happiness (or utility)
is not defined by purchasing power, net worth, or sheer consumption, would offer more
incentive to “live to work” rather than “working to live.” This could lead to a shift away
from “the almighty dollar” being valued more than our time, to a more enjoyable and healthy
lifestyle where time is more important than money. I say healthy because money is now
limitless in its quantity, whereas time (speaking individually) is limited. By focusing on the
distribution of the finite resource, we are likely to use it more efficiently, gaining more from
it and deriving more true happiness.
I realize the complexity of this idea and the problems that would arise such as “necessary
jobs, which people don’t aspire to do,” but I do believe it possible to at least make a decent
argument (which would take more time than appropriate here). I am simply saying that
“where there’s a will, there’s a way.”

124 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
At any rate, I suppose the actual question here is to be taken in the context of Marx’s view
and his critique of capitalism. And under these conditions, yes time is the best and simplest
measure of labor.
Hans: The capitalist system measures labor very accurately, but its motive is not the saving of labor but profits.
We cannot yet go into details here in chapter One, but the stage for this is set already now by the fact that an
expenditure, the labor used up in production, takes the form of an asset, i.e., the value of the product.
Message [208] referenced by [2010fa:106]. Next Message by Dentist is [249].
[219] Hans: This question will not be on Monday’s Exam. Everyone except those
unfortunate souls who have answered question 302 has received a grade now and extensive
commentaries. And I have to rush to the airport to greet Larry Lohmann. Therefore here is
the deal: Installment 1 can be downloaded from
http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/pdf/l2mo/i1.pdf
or, if you prefer the screen readable version,
http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/pdf/screen/i1.pdf
You can also get it from the University Copy Center, they will download and print it for
you when you come in. As additional answers come in due to the extra credit assignment,
these URL’s will have the latest updated version. Since question 302 is not commented by
me, it will not be on the Monday exam. But it may be on the Thursday exam, and by this
time my comments will be there.
About the exam, read pages 691-2 in the syllabus. Regarding the extra credit assignment
between now and Sunday 10:45 am, see the paragraph on pp. 677/8 of the syllabus.
Next Message by Hans is [228].
[228] Hans: Consensus. Everyone agrees that despite the alternatives time is best, and
some even say that the alternatives come down to time.
None of you proposed to make the measurement of labor dependent on the kind of labor.
Are 8 hours doing research into an interesting subject really the same as 8 hours scrubbing
floors? From Marx we learn that a commodity society treats all labors as equal. This does
not mean all labors are equal.
Some of you did argue on the other hand that distinctions should be made among nonlabor
activities: work which diminishes your leisure time is different from work which diminishes
time with family or which prevents a single mother from caring for her children.
Arguably, caring for children is a contribution to the social good as much or more than
flipping hamburgers in a fast food outlet.
Wade [188] is the only one seeing problems with it that someone who is gifted and talented
and therefore produces more gets higher rewards, although I wish he had made a
stronger point.
None of you looked from the labor process from the point of view of the worker, as a
process which trains and develops the worker, rather than a process which puts out a product.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 125
Some explicitly said that the measurement of labor depends on the society we live in.
I.e., it is not an eternal necessity to do it the way this society does it. Maybe things can be
arranged in a better and fairer manner.
Next Message by Hans is [231].
Question 311 is 301 in 2007SP and 306 in 2007fa:
Question 311 Why does Marx say in footnote 38 to paragraph 177:3–4 that the commodities
diamond, pearl, etc., only seem to possess relativity as exchange-values? Are exchangevalues
not relative by definition?
[175] Bennett: In footnote 36 Marx says that, “(diamonds, pearls, etc.) possess as
exchange-values to the true relation hidden behind this semblance, namely their relativity
as mere expressions of human labor”. I think that Marx says this because he believes that
these extravagant commodities such as diamonds and pearls are falsely valued by society.
There is no real reason why these things should be valued and regarded as highly as they are.
In Capital, 177:3–4, Marx says it best, “the use-value of material objects belongs to these
objects independently of their material properties”. So basically what is the true value of a
diamond or a pearl and why have people made these objects inflated commodities? These
commodities only possess high exchange-values because society has given these commodities
high exchange-values but in reality these commodities should have less worth in my
opinion to that of something that is hundreds of times cheaper but much more important like
food and water and other essentials that support life.
Hans: The reason why pearl and diamond have high values (as Marx uses the word) is that lots of labor went into
producing them. Their value is not a measure of their usefulness or social importance.
In 177:3–4, Marx is ironic: he assumes that the reader immediately understands that the use-values of objects
of course depend on their material properties.
Message [175] referenced by [204]. Next Message by Bennett is [347].
[194] Ande: Marx says that “diamond, pearl, etc., only seem to posses relativity as
exchange-values” because there has never been any evidence by chemists or anyone that
these items carry any such exchange-value. They have value, but their value is only what
someone is willing to pay you or trade you for them. They do not carry an exact exchangevalue
in Marx’s terms. As well the use-value of these items changes from person to person
because the diamonds’ and pearls’ value will be different from man to man depending on
what each individual thinks they are worth. They have a market exchange value but that is
not a definite set price, things are only worth what someone will pay or trade you for the
particular item. That is why I feel as though marx said “diamond, pearl, etc., only seem to
posses relativity as exchange-values.”
No I do not feel exchange-values are relative by definition, but it becomes confusing
when you talk about market values and exchange-values because a market value is true by
definition, but no an exchange-value is not relative by definition. The reason that they are
not relative is because an exchange-value can differ from person to person and there is no
relative price to an exchange-value, Marx would disagree with me a little bit there but one
has to agree that some people may not want to exchange a good depending on the exchangevalue.
Exchange is seen as a relation between things, but value belongs to that thing. So
each item or person might have a different exchange-value for the item they have and want

126 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
to make a trade with. You can get more for your item in exchange-value terms, than you
can by market value by definition. Although Marx might disagree with me, I feel as though
exchange-values are not truly relative by definition.
Hans: Marx does not think exchange-value is determined by what someone is willing to pay for the thing. It is a
social relation, some things have high exchange-values, others low. The exchange-value of a good does not depend
on the individual holding the good.
Next Message by Ande is [195].
[204] Raynold: In response to Bennett [175], my opinion on the reasons why these certain
commodities such as diamonds and pearls are valued so highly is because of their worth.
Worth, meaning the efforts it took to obtain it and also its availability to the market. But then
I definitely see where Marx is coming from when he says that these (diamonds and pearls)
are falsely valued by society because society allowed it to have such high exchange-values
when in reality, they don’t do much but blink. These over-rated products (diamonds and
pearls) definitely outweigh the cost of human necessitites such as food and drink etc.. We
can see how these high-valued commodities set different standards for classes. The mid to
upper class now have the luxury to show their wealth by their blink, but in actual reality,
this is not useful for more important matters in the world such as sicknesses, food, drink and
other beneficial tools we need to survive.
Hans: Diamonds do much more than just blink, they are extremely hard and indispensable for certain production
processes (oil drilling) because of this.
Your main mistake is that you think Bennett in [175] has anything to do with Marx. Your own theory why
diamonds and pearls have high value is much closer to Marx than Bennett’s misinterpretations of specific Marx
quotes.
Marx says the values of pearl and diamond come from the labor it takes to produce them. The availability of
the market can create disturbances which may in the short run drive prices away from values, but it does not play a
role for value itself.
Next Message by Raynold is [220].
Multiple Choice Question 313 is 600 in 2000fa and 247 in 2002fa:
Multiple Choice Question 313 Three of the following four quotes about the mysterious
character of the commodity have been botched up to make them false or senseless. Only one
quote is taken literally from Marx. Which one?
(a) A commodity at first glance seems to be a quite complicated thing, abounding in metaphysical
hairsplitting and theological niceties. But its analysis brings out that it is something
obvious and trivial.
(b) The mystical character of the commodity does not arise, therefore, from its use-value. No
more does it spring from the forms of the value determination.
(c) To the producers therefore, the social relations between their private labors do not appear
as what they are, i.e., not as direct social relations of persons during their labor processes
themselves, but rather as material relations of persons and social relations of things.
(d) If commodities could speak, they would say this: our use-value may interest humans, but
it does not belong to us as objects. What does belong to us as objects, however, is our value.
[357] Hans: Difficult Multiple Choice. The unaltered Marx quote is (d).
Here are the actual Marx quotes underlying the other items:

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 127
(a) 163:3/o At first glance, a commodity seems to be something obvious and trivial. But
its analysis brings out that it is quite complicated, abounding in metaphysical hairsplitting
and theological niceties.
(b) 164:1 The mystical character of the commodity does not arise, therefore, from its
use-value. No more does it spring from the content of the determinations of value.
(c) 165:2/o To the producers therefore, the social relations between their private labors
appear as what they are, i.e., not as direct social relations of persons during their labor processes
themselves, but rather as material relations of persons and social relations of things.
Next Message by Hans is [415].
Question 318 is 173 in 1995WI, 150 in 1995ut, 183 in 1996sp, 196 in 1997WI, 203 in
1997sp, 295 in 2004fa, 316 in 2008fa, 358 in 2010fa, 337 in 2011fa, and 352 in 2012fa:
Question 318 Explain in your own words Marx’s phrase that the commodity owners’ will
“resides” in the objects which are his property.
Is this a good thing or not? Where does it have its limits in our society? Are there things for
which it is desirable that people’s wills reside in them?
[255] Ryoung: Thinking For Property? Marx states that the commodity owner’s will
resides in objects which are his property. At first thought this is a simple idea and is easy to
understand when thinking upon another thought by Marx that said the commodity can not
walk itself to the market. For me this thought by Marx puts the answer to this question in
simple terms. A commodity does not have the ability to walk, talk, act, or think for itself.
This goes to say that in order for a commodity to function it must receive help, in one way
or another, from its owner.
Most commodities came to pass with a certain function that they were to perform. In
order for this function to perform, for good or for bad, the owner must take action to help
it out. For example in order for an alarm clock to function properly, the owner must set the
alarm for a certain time in order for the alarm to sound so that the owner may arise at his/her
desired time. It is the will of its owner that determines to which degree the alarm clock
functions.
I believe that this is a good thing as it helps the human race function at a more efficient
rate in the case of the alarm clock. However it also depends on the will of the owner in
order to determine if this certain commodity simplifies human life or function to its desired
purpose. With all the commodities that this world has to offer I believe that there is always
the potential for the owner’s will to reside within the commodity but whether it is desirable
or not depends on the will of the owner. Much of this desirability depends on how the owner
uses his will and free agency. This may or may not be desirable depending on the owner.
Hans: Wherever you say “commodity” in the above example, you mean “use-value.” You do not at all refer to the
exchange-relations which make this use-value a commodity. This is the wrong use of the word “commodity.”
Message [255] referenced by [269] and [2010fa:392]. Next Message by Ryoung is [350].
[269] Hans: Property Thinking for Us. The alarm clock in Ryoung’s [255] is an excellent
example of someone depositing his will into a thing. You sleep deeply, you certainly do

128 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
not want to get up, but rrrrg says the alarm clock, shaking you out of your sleep, all because
you set it the night before. The alarm clock is executing your will against you.
Despite the ingenuity of Ryoung’s example, this is not what Marx means by the commodity
owner’s will residing in the commodity, for two reasons:
(1) Marx uses the word “commodity,” not “use-value.” I.e., he does not refer to the usevalue
of the commodity, but to those relations which make it a commodity: its exchange
relations, private ownership, value.
(2) The transfer of the will to the commodity is not a deliberate act on the part of the owner
like the setting of an alarm clock, but the owner finds himself as the captive of the commodity’s
exchange relations. Think of it this way: someone steps on the commodity (i.e.,
violates the commodity’s exchange relations) and the owner says “ouch.” In [2007SP:723]
I said that by offering its body to the owner as a residence for his will the commodity acts
passive-aggressively, because this is a vehicle for the commodity to get its owner to do what
it wants.
Someone critical of capitalism might expect this to be a bad thing; after all, this is the
mechanism by which the commodities get people to do things which are not in the interest
of the people but of the commodities. But without it, things may not get the necessary care
and be wasted. As I already mentioned in [1997sp:170], the Soviet-Union type socialist
countries were littered with unfinished investment projects, begun by one administration
under one 5-year-plan, but the next administration lost interest and the project simply was
never finished.
Another situation where it would be a good thing if people invested their will more into
an object is global warming. As I said in [71], the willful destruction of the environment is
far the greatest expropriation ever, it impoverishes all of us. Yet there is not enough urgent
action or public outcry as Ande observed in [195]. Is it because people do not feel that part
of their property, which they own and have a right to, is stolen from them?
Message [269] referenced by [2010fa:389] and [2012fa:446]. Next Message by Hans is [273].
Question 320 is 297 in 2004fa, 290 in 2005fa, and 315 in 2007fa:
Question 320 Explain the difference between personal and private property.
[266] Matt: Personal vs Private Property. As stated in the annotations, personal property
is part of your person (TV’s, Cars, clothes, iPOD). They give you the right to exclude
others from using these personal things since they are part of your person. As Hans states
in [2005fa:767] no one has the right to take them away from you, giving you the right to
exclude others from it.
Private property on the other hand is a social relationship, not a relationship between person
and thing according to Marx. It’s the form personal property takes in a society driven by
capitalism itself. Private property draws the meaning of respect, giving the notion that we
must respect the property of others. This respect Marx speaks of is relative because we become
‘protectors’ or ‘guardians’ of our own commodities. We then claim these commodities
as private property and ensure as guardians that there is fair and equal exchange.
Message [266] referenced by [275] and [290]. Next Message by Matt is [272].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 129
[275] Hans: Personal property is not the only form of property. I consider [2005fa:767]
to be “the” right answer to this question. This answer is referenced by Matt [266], but Matt is
not critical enough of private property. Therefore here is an answer which makes the Marxist
critique of private property more explicit:
Personal property are those things for which the legal concept of private property is appropriate,
i.e., those things from which people should have the right to exclude others, such
as your clothes, your toothbrush, etc. In a capitalist society, factories and other large-scale
means of production are private property, although they are clearly not personal property.
Property relations appropriate to large-scale means of production would either be that they
are collectively owned by the workers, or that they are owned by everyone, with the workers
entrusted to run them for the good of everyone. Making them private property institutionalizes
the class divisions in capitalist society, in which a small elite, by controlling the means
of production, are able to appropriate the fruit of the labor of the majority of the population.
Message [275] referenced by [289]. Next Message by Hans is [322].
[289] Dentist: What’s mine is yours, and yours is mine. The question placed before us
for us to identify the difference between personal and private property. Rather than trying to
assemble various examples of personal and private property, I think what we are supposed
to see is that ultimately, private property in so far as it is defined within capitalism is a myth
and creates negative effects on society.
What Hans [275] has identified, is a fallacy in their relationship. Personal property are
those things which we should, and correctly do have the right to exclude others from, regardless
of the social structure. These are the objects that are necessary and productive to
us individually and not as a collective society. This statement can be (or should be) equally
interchangeable with “private property.” However, under capitalism we have things that are
legally declared to be “private Property,” yet they do not fit this definition. The classic
examples which Hans [275] illustrates are the factories and various means of large-scale
production that are clearly not productive at an individual level.
In the suggested archive reference, Hans [2005fa:767] says “Private property is the form
that personal property takes in capitalist society.” I find this to be quite thought provoking and
from it have come to the conclusion that personal property is real whereas private property
is something that is not (any more at least). I believe Hans is saying, along with Marx that
private property should be equal to personal property, but capitalism has somehow been able
to add an asterisk to “private property” and redefine it; Thereby creating the opportunity to
quietly and subtly remove private property from its equilibrium with personal property.
Looking past this glorified slight of hand trick should reveal some enlightenment into the
deceptions and exploitations that exist within the capitalist system. When we see that this
equilibrium has been destroyed unknowingly to the population at large, Marx’s argument of
the deceived and exploited nature of the society at large becomes more readily understood
and easily visible.
Next Message by Dentist is [303].
[290] Wasatch: personal and private property. Personal property is something that
has a relation between itself and a person. The owner of this commodity is the keeper or

130 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
guardian of the commodity, as Hans writes on page 206. Personal property is a commodity
that a person is not required to share with society. It is his to do whatever he wants with it.
Private property is a commodity (or personal property) that is exchanged for another’s
property.
An example of personal property would be your personal car (you can do whatever you
want with this car and no one can take it from you or tell you what to do with it) and an
example of private property would be your car while you are trading it for a person’s cattle.
While you are using it as a “means to access” another person’s property.
Hans: Do you consider yourself the guardian of your clothes? “Guardian” or “keeper” means that the thing is in
the foreground, not the person. This is applicable to private property, not personal property. Matt [266] had it right,
compare also the Annotations where this word is used, 178:1/o.
Grade penalty because you didn’t say how your submission relates to the three earlier submissions. For instance,
I don’t know if you are even aware that Matt’s use of “guardian” is different from yours.
Next Message by Wasatch is [293].
[581] Bennett: Personal Property Take 2. The most important distinction between
personal and private property is that others (society) must respect your property. This respect
from everybody else in society makes your personal property, private. Society cannot use
these commodities without your permission. With your personal property (jewelry, cell
phone, house, etc.) you are the only person that has the right to let others use these things
if you so choose, this ability to have this ownership of these commodities makes them your
private property. Having personal ownership of commodities gives you the ability to trade
for the use of others private property as well. You must have property to exchange with them
in order to use their private property. According to Hans having your own private property
is “the means to access others’ property.”
Next Message by Bennett is [648].
[584] Hans: Personal Property a Subset of Private Property. Your private property are
those things which you are allowed to use for yourself, and nobody else is allowed to use
them without your permission. Your personal property are a subset of your private property:
they are the things which by their nature warrant such exclusive use by you because they are
an extension of your person, such as your toothbrush or your clothes or your home.
Marxists are critical of private property because certain things which are not an extension
of your person but which, on the contrary, can only be used socially, such as factories, can
nevertheless be the private property of someone. Why should someone have the right to
exclude others from resources which he cannot use for himself? As a bargaining chip in
order to get access to resources privately controlled by the others. Marxists think this is
legalized extortion.
Next Message by Hans is [585].
Question 322 is 174 in 1995WI, 153 in 1995ut, 186 in 1996sp, 206 in 1997sp, 207 in
1998WI, 292 in 2005fa, 312 in 2007SP, 320 in 2008fa, and 356 in 2012fa:
Question 322 Which social relations must exist between producers so that they will exchange
(or buy and sell) their products as commodities? Describe groups or societies which
have social relations which preclude exchange between individual members.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 131
[852] PrivateProperty: The Commodity Relation. Marx spends a significant portion of
Capital discussing the commodity as the central unit of capitalism, and for good reason. The
commodity is the basis for social relations in a capitalist society, and does not simply allow,
but necessitates the production and exchange of commodities on the market.
Products were (and still are, in some places) exchanged on a group level rather than
amongst individuals. A striking example of this occurs amongst Native American tribes,
where goods such as horses and food are brokered between groups through tribe Chiefs,
rather than amongst individuals. In these systems, the means of production (such as land)
belonged to the entire community, and were not conceptualized as property. This is arguably
a form of communism, though inefficient and highly fragmented.
When private property is enforced by means of institutions, de facto and/or de jure, then
the commodity arises. The commodity becames a vehicle for value, and demands to be
exchanged for other commodities.
The commodity relation provides the framework from which producers must operate.
Producers desire to reap as much value as possible from the exchange of commodities, and
thus establish a control over the means of production and employ workers to produce output.
This is the social relation between producers that allows the exchange of their products.
In [2007SP:312] Fenix writes that the behavior of producers is regulated by law. However,
this is completely misleading as regulations are a reflection of capitalist institutions to
begin with. Laws are created to protect the interests of de facto powers. It’s called political
economy, and it determines everything.
Message [852] referenced by [2008fa:485]. Next Message by PrivateProperty is [868].
Question 325 is 302 in 2004fa, 295 in 2005fa, and 320 in 2007fa:
Question 325 Do the persons represent commodities because they are commodity owners,
or are they commodity owners because they represent commodities?
[265] Rey: graded A Commodity....Represent!!! In a capitalist system a person represents
a commodity because they are the owner of that commodity. The representing of a
commodity is a social relation and only appears once ownership of a commodity is recognized.
This is illustrated by Marx when he says, “Individuals remain strangers to each other
and only enter into ‘scratch your back’ relations” when seeking the exchange of a commodity.
Further elaborating Marx states, “people relate to others not first and foremost as people
but first and foremost as property owners.” Marx feels social views are due to the economic
systems.
In discussing capitalism it is easy to see when viewing things from Marx’s perspective
why one would be seen first and foremost as a commodity representative. The majority of
focus in a capitalistic system is on the accumulation of commodities, thus if one is always
focused on accumulation of commodities one will constantly be viewing others simply as
the commodity representative. The idea that this social relation is a product of the social
system gives Marx a great deal of hope that individuals can see others in a more “humane”
light given a change in the system.

132 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
This idea of this social view being a product of systems is also illustrated in Marx’s
discussion of juridical policies. Only in a capitalist society, where laws are centered on
private property, can this social role even exist. If individuals are able to take commodities
at will, there would be no reason to recognize anyone as a commodity owner and this social
role would cease to exist. Thus we see that the reason individuals take on the social role of
a commodity representative, in a capitalistic system, is because they are the owners of that
commodity.
Hans: The quotes which you attribute to Marx are really my interpretation of Marx. Only the two-column text in
German and English is from Marx himself.
Message [265] referenced by [273]. Next Message by Rey is [291].
[273] Hans: Both are Right. Rey’s answer [265] seems very reasonable:
Individuals take on the social role of a commodity representative, in a capitalistic
system, because they are the owners of that commodity.
But Marx says in 178:1/o:
The persons exist here for one another only as representatives of commodities,
therefore as commodity owners.
This wording indicates that being a representative of commodities comes first. Marx
seems to say that we are commodity owners because we are representatives of commodities.
Marx’s answer is the opposite of Rey’s answer because Marx looks at the social relations
as a whole. In Marx’s theory, the ultimate reason why the laws of private property exist
is that they provide the legal framework which enables people to treat their products as
commodities. Rey, on the other hand, looks at it from an individual point of view: individuals
who find themselves in this legal framework are therefore motivated to treat their private
property as commodities.
Not only the laws regulating our behavior but also many other things in our society are
as they are because this is a capitalist society. Capitalism has truly penetrated into every
aspect of our lives. This is by no means a benign state of affairs, as I tried to explain in
[2007fa:304].
Next Message by Hans is [275].
Question 327 is 301 in 2005fa:
Question 327 Marx writes that the commodities which the owners take to market are eager
to exchange not only their souls but also their bodies. What would it look like if they only
exchanged their souls and not their bodies?
[288] Bmellor: Souls and bodies. In the last paragraph before the question there is a
clarification of what Marx is talking about. In this paragraph it is explained that when Marx
says “exchanged not only soul but body” is a sexual analogy. I am clarifying because if you
have not read this part of the annotations it might seem a bit odd that I bring up prostitutes.
Prostitutes are individuals that would perform sexual acts with whomever regardless; they
deal mainly with the body exchange. Now on the other side the side that deals with the
soul would be a person that interacts on a level where they share in life experiences. Such a

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 133
person would be like a psychiatrist. They share with you in your life experiences. Or maybe
a leader in the church with which you belong. These would be relationships or interpersonal
interactions, where people are dealing with you on a “soul exchange” perhaps you bear your
soul to them and they return back their feelings to you.
A market system where individuals exchanged their souls and not their bodies would
be one, where the car manufacturer produces a safe automobile because they are earnestly
concerned for the safety of the consumer. Rather than producing an automobile that is forced
to meet specific government regulations, in a means most profitable. In such a system there
would be an influx of social entrepreneurs where people would provide a good or service for
a community - this good or service is perhaps non-profit or less profitable, but yet society
needs the good or service. Debt counseling services would be an example.
Hans: Safe automobiles is an excellent example for what my [2005fa:811] tried to describe in general. Wholesome
food comes to mind as well, as opposed to food that is sugared up to taste good, without regard of the health of the
eater other than government regulations.
Next Message by Bmellor is [399].
Question 330 is 176 in 1995WI, 154 in 1995ut, 187 in 1996sp, 189 in 1996ut, 200 in
1997WI, 207 in 1997sp, 199 in 1997ut, 208 in 1998WI, 228 in 2000fa, 241 in 2001fa, 273
in 2003fa, 328 in 2008fa, 342 in 2009fa, 349 in 2011fa, and 365 in 2012fa:
Question 330 In chapter Two, Marx depicts commodities as conscious beings which are
eager to be exchanged, but do not care about the use-value of the commodity they are exchanged
for. Why are commodities, which are inanimate things, depicted here as beings with
their own will, and why do they not care about the use-value of the other commodity?
[848] Bmellor: Commodities are given behavioral traits because an owner of a commodity
does not have control over its price or exchange value. This is definitely present in a
perfect competition market: those involved in the competitive industry are price takers, and
in chapter Two Marx explains how the commodity doesn’t care about its use-value but of
course the owner does. The owner is holding back the commodity from exchanging itself for
something completely useless. If the owner doesn’t receive something useful then he will
not exchange what he has.
The reason that we have this conflict between owner and commodity is that in its basic
form the commodity will leave the owner even with no exchange taking place. What does
that mean, are cars going to get up and drive themselves away from a dealership? No, but
someone might steal them. And in essence the commodity is leaving without having made
an exchange. That is why the owner is depicted as restraining the commodity, because there
is always a possibility that the commodity will leave the owner with nothing of value in its
place.
Hans: You say “in chapter Two Marx explains how the commodity doesn’t care about its use-value but of course
the owner does” but you are not giving this explanation. Why do commodities not care about use-value? Actually
you had “value” instead of “use-value” but I fixed that, because in Marx’s metaphor commodities do care about
values.
Your explanation why the commodity owner “restrains” the commodity is creative, but I did not mean “protect
from theft” when I wrote “restrain” in [2003fa:741], or Ajax in [1998WI:199]. A “restraint” is necessary because
for the commodity-owner’s taste the commodity is too eager to exchange itself. The owner has to restrain the
commodity from making an exchange with another commodity whose use-value he does not like.

134 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by Bmellor is [875].
Question 333 is 303 in 2005fa, 331 in 2008fa, 345 in 2009fa, and 367 in 2012fa:
Question 333 Marx seems to enjoy the play of words that immediately, a commodity does
not have immediate use-value for its owner. Explain what he means by this.
[854] Samantha: A sundial in the Shade. Marx is not presenting a contradiction in his
two uses of the phrase use-value. First Marx states that use-value is the ability to use the
product, a sundial in the sun shows the owner the time immediately its use value evident.
However in his second use of use-value he is describing a use value specific to exchange
meaning that of the producer. Though the object has an use-value, it can not immediate have
the value the producer would like for the object. Think of a sundial in the shade, the sundial
still has a use-value but it is not able to immediately fulfill the purpose its producer designed
it for, except that in Marx’s theory it is specific to exchanging goods for its owner. As Ernesto
mentions in [2005fa:744], quantity also factors into this equation, a person really only needs
so many sundials and so when mass produced they no longer have the same use-value to
the producer, but on exchange regain their immediate use value. This does not account for a
product produced solely to be exchanged but for a more community centered excess.
Hans: If you say that on exchange, commodities regain their immediate use-value, then you are also implying that
their use-value as a means of exchange is not an “immediate” use-value. This is what I tried to say in [2005fa:752].
First Message by Samantha is [55].
[883] Wade: Immediate Use-Value. A commodity is made to be exchanged for other
commodities that may be use-values to the producer. The producer makes commodities but
he doesn’t have a use-value for all of them immediately, he is producing the commodities for
the gain of other commodities or use-values that he may need immediately or that he may
have the use-value for in the future. A great example would be a blacksmith; he labors all
day producing horse shoes, but only has two horses with 4 hoofs each, so he only has the
use-value of 8 horseshoes. But he has needs of commodities such as clothes, tools, and so
on. The Blacksmith doesn’t have an immediate use-value for all of the horseshoes, but once
his horses need a replacement on a shoe or he needs a new set of work boots the use-value
of those horseshoes is immediate.
Hans: In colloquial English, the word “immediately” is used in a temporal sense, meaning “right now.” Marx uses
this word in its original meaning, it means “direct” or “without mediation.” Perhaps now my [2005fa:752] is easier
to understand.
Next Message by Wade is [900].
[891] Rampton: Commodity doesn’t have immediate use-value. Marx writes that
in capitalism “commodities must be realised as values before they can be realised as use
values.” I take this to mean that in capitalism access to use values is mediated or impeded
by values - monetary and labor-time. When someone buys a commodity it will not have
immediate use value until the commodity is used and made use of. His commodity possesses
for himself no immediate use-value. Otherwise, he would not bring it to the market. It has
use-value for others; but for himself its only direct use-value is that of being a depository of
exchange value, and consequently, a means of exchange. Therefore, he makes up his mind
to part with it for commodities whose value in use is of service to him. All commodities are
non-use-values for their owners, and use-values for their non-owners. Consequently, they
must all change hands. But this change of hands is what constitutes their exchange, and the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 135
latter puts them in relation with each other as values, and realises them as values. Hence
commodities must be realised as values before they can be realised as use-values.
Hans: If someone buys a commodity, then it will usually be a commodity which has immediate use-value for him.
Only the commodities he sells do not have immediate use-value for him. You are required to attribute and quote all
Marx quotes.
First Message by Rampton is [500].
Question 334 is 346 in 2009fa and 354 in 2011fa:
Question 334 First Marx says that the commodity has no immediate use-value for its owner.
Then he says that its immediate use-value is that of serving as a means of exchange. Aren’t
these two statements contradictory? Does or doesn’t have the commodity an immediate
use-value?
[860] Jenn: graded A “means of exchange” is not a use-value. I believe Marx brings
up this supposedly contradictory statement to make a point, as he often does. In order to
meet the criteria for a definition of a commodity, it can be of no use-value to its owner.
Additionally, it must have use-value to its non-owner. When Marx says its “immediate usevalue”
is serving as a means of exchange, not that its use value is a means of exchange. It
is a subtle yet important change in verbage, probably just because he loves to do this to get
people to further scrutinize his definitions.
The commodity itself has value because it contains labor. It has exchange-value on the
market. It does not however, have use-value for the owner until after the exchange has
already taken place. The use-value of the commodity is in its natural form in which the
owner will actually use it for, its raison d’etre. Commodities must be realized as values
before they can be realized as use-values, and the realization of value does not occur until
after the exchange process has taken place. Marx wants to point out the skin-deep argument
that a “means of exchange” can be a use-value is really not a valid argument.
Message [860] referenced by [2009fa:462]. First Message by Jenn is [16].
Question 336 is 331 in 2007fa, 350 in 2009fa, 360 in 2011fa, 373 in 2012fa, and 360 in
Answer:
Question 336 Is it true that exchange is the ultimate proof that a commodity is useful? What
if the consumer who acquires the commodity in exchange takes it home and discovers that it
is not useful after all?
[858] Inter: Discovery of Uselessness: Continuation from fall of 2007. I would like
to continue the discussion which took place in the fall of 2007. After an array of answers,
Hans states in [2007fa:316]:
“In the original formulation of the question I had a much more trivial usecase
in mind. Assume the consumer who acquires the commodity in exchange
takes it home and discovers that it is not useful after all. Does this
make the labor that produced the good socially unnecessary, even though
the product was sold? This still has not been resolved.”
It is at this juncture that I would like to attempt to resolve the question that Hans posed.

136 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
To simply answer the question, yes this makes the labor that produced the good socially
unnecessary. Marx states in 179:2 that “only their exchange can prove whether that labor is
useful for others, i.e., whether its product satisfies the needs of others.” In other words, if
a product does not satisfy the needs of others because it has been discovered that it is not
useful, then the labor that produced that commodity was socially unnecessary.
Furthermore Marx states at the beginning of section 2.2.b that commodities exchange
hands because they have use-value for their non-owners. It is my interpretation that if it is
later discovered that the commodity did not have this use-value which initiated the exchange,
then the labor that went into to producing the commodity, which lacks use-value, is socially
unnecessary.
Message [858] referenced by [874] and [887]. First Message by Inter is [148].
[874] Clayon: Re: Discovery of Uselessness: Continuation from fall of 2007. I agree
with Inter’s analysis in [858] that a good that does not have a use-value for anyone, is socially
unnecessary. But as long as someone has a use value for it, it will be exchanged. Thus we
can say that it is true, “that exchange is the ultimate proof that a commodity is useful.” For
even when a consumer acquires a commodity and takes it home only to discover that it is not
useful to him, he can still make use of the commodity by exchanging it yet again (assuming
that someone as a use-value for it). Aristotle’s quote in annotations highlights the dual nature
and value of every object:
“for twofold is the use of every object... The one is peculiar to the object as
such, the other is not, as a sandal which may be worn and is also exchangeable.
both are uses of the sandal, for even he who exchanges the sandal for
the money or food he is in need of, makes use of the sandal as a sandal. But
not in its natural way. For it does not exist for the sake of being exchanged.”
A commodity will not be exchanged if there is no use-value for it.
Message [874] referenced by [Answer:14], [887], and [2011fa:514]. Next Message by Clayon is [897].
[876] Carterryan: The Art of Exchange. Exchange is the ultimate proof that a commodity
is useful because exchange is more for a personal use and satisfies personal needs.
Exchange just takes a commodity that the first person has that they do not need as much as
the commodity that they are exchanging for.
If the person takes it home and realizes that they no longer need that commodity then the
use value had just declined for the user. The value may still be there for another person in a
new exchange, but the value for the first person has changed. So the overall outcome of the
exchange tells you if the proof of the exchange is useful.
Message [876] referenced by [Answer:14], [887], and [2011fa:514]. First Message by Carterryan is [50].
[887] Hans: Necessary Enough. If a consumer buys a gadget and after taking it home
discovers that she cannot use it, then Inter [858] says that the labor producing the gadget
was not socially necessary. Clayon [874] says that the labor producing the gadget was still
socially necessary, because the consumer can exchange the gadget for something else. And
Carterryan [876], if I understand him right, says that the labor producing the gadget was
socially necessary only if the consumer can find someone who exchanges the gadget for
something she can really use.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 137
My own take on this question is that the labor producing the gadget has passed the test
of being socially necessary in the moment the gadget is sold. Perhaps this is easiest to
see if the consumer has no option to exchange the gadget for something different. If the
consumer discovers that she does not need the gadget, that’s too bad for her, but that’s her
private matter. From the point of view of the society, the labor producing the gadget has
been vindicated as socially necessary the minute the gadget was sold to her.
Here are some other examples: assume the consumer thinks she needs the gadget but she
really doesn’t. Is the labor going into the gadget socially necessary in this case? Yes it is.
Assume we live in the 1950s and the cigarette companies have successfully kept the
adverse health effects of cigarettes a secret. If a person buys cigarettes who would never
have touched cigarettes had she known the detrimental health effects of cigarettes, then the
labor going into producing the cigarettes is still socially necessary.
“Socially necessary” labor is not labor that is ultimately necessary from the elevated point
of view of the Last Judgment, but it is labor which passes the test for being a legitimate
member in the social division of labor as far as our society goes. The sale of the commodity
is exactly this test.
Message [887] referenced by [2009fa:844]. First Message by Hans is [3].
Question 337 is 178 in 1995WI, 156 in 1995ut, 189 in 1996sp, 202 in 1997WI, 201 in
1997ut, 265 in 2002fa, 278 in 2003fa, and 375 in 2012fa:
Question 337 Which contradictions do commodity owners face if they want to barter their
products (as opposed to buying and selling them)? Make up imaginary dialogs on the market
place in which these contradictions are expressed.
[897] Clayon: When bartering their products, commodity owners face the contradiction
between the individual dimension, and the social dimension. They want to be able to
exchange their good for a commodity that will satisfy their use-value needs (This is the individual
dimension). At the same time however, he wants credit for his commodity according
to its value, whether or not it has use-value for the recipient (the social dimension). These
two ideas contradict each other because if the second statement holds true, it means that
exchange will be based upon the value and not the use-value of a commodity. This forces
one to accept an offer that perhaps has less use-value to him.
Next Message by Clayon is [898].
Exam Question 338 is 180 in 1995WI, 191 in 1996sp, 204 in 1997WI, 211 in 1997sp, 203
in 1997ut, 221 in 1999SP, 231 in 2000fa, 279 in 2003fa, 313 in 2004fa, 328 in 2007SP,
352 in 2009fa, 381 in 2010fa, 363 in 2011fa, 377 in 2012fa, and 191 in Answer:
Exam Question 338 Which “deed” is Marx referring to in the following passage: “In their
dilemma our commodity-owners think like Faust: ‘In the beginning was the deed.’ They have
therefore already acted before thinking.”
[898] Clayon: The contradiction between the social and individual functions of a commodity
could not be solved on the individual level, but only on the social level. “Society
had to agree to accept a certain commodity as General equivalent.” This was something that

138 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
took place long ago, most likely without any recognition as to what was taking place. Hence
we have Marx’s reference to Goethe’s drama Faust, “In the beginning was the deed,” meaning
that they had acted long before they realized what was happening. As Hans notes, this
mainly occurs in societies, as opposed to individuals who first think, and then act.
Message [898] referenced by [2009fa:931], [2011fa:383], and [2011fa:420]. First Message by Clayon is [165].
Question 340 How does the historical broadening and deepening of exchange develop the
opposition between use-value and value dormant in the nature of the commodity?
[885] Alcameron: opposition of use-value and value. The use value and inherent value
that is dormant in commodities oppose each other and move farther apart as time moves
on. The historical broadening and deepening of exchange cause the gap between these two
values to widen as time goes on becuase of the process which commodities go through. Let
me use an example:
Copper has a dormant or inherent value as a metal. This value isn’t the value of gold
or silver, but it does have value nonetheless. A couple hundred years ago copper may have
been used to make tools or some sort of metal machinery. The properties of copper determine
what it is useful for, and thus determine much of its use-value. Thanks to technological
advancements and the discovery of electricity we know copper is a great conductor of electricity.
It is used in nearly every home in wires that carry electricity to the home. Our iPod
speakers have copper in them, our water pipes in our homes are often made of copper, we
may have decorative pieces made of copper. The use-value of copper has changed drastically
in the past 200 years because new discoveries and the continued exchange of copper. The
inherent value of the metal and its properties have remained relatively unchanged during that
time. The gap between these two values only widens as time goes on.
Hans: You are defining value as the physical properties which make a thing what it is, and use-value as the uses of
a thing in a given society. Marx has quite a different definition of “value.”
First Message by Alcameron is [479].
Question 343 is 182 in 1995WI, 160 in 1995ut, 192 in 1996sp, 209 in 1997WI, 205 in
1997ut, 214 in 1998WI, 233 in 2000fa, 312 in 2005fa, 343 in 2008fa, 368 in 2011fa, and
382 in 2012fa:
Question 343 Why is the occasional exchange of surplus products between tribes not an
exchange of “commodities” but one of “products”?
[901] Slash: commodities must be intended for exchange. Commodities are produced
with the sole intent to be exchanged. Commodities are sold without the producer looking
at creating a personal benefit with their product. For example if a tribe found animal skins
useful for survival and randomly found that they had excess animal skins one year would
not turn their excess animal skins into commodities, but would make them products they
are willing to part with. Commodities are exchanged on a regular basis. When a tribe sets
out to collect animal skins with the intent to sell the skins and does so, they then become
commodities.
Next Message by Slash is [902].
Question 346 is 184 in 1995WI, 162 in 1995ut, 371 in 2011fa, and 385 in 2012fa:

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 139
Question 346 What is the difference between the exchange of products and the exchange
of commodities? Why does the exchange of products usually involve surplus-products, and
why does it first take place between members of different communities?
[873] Andy: Exchange of products and commodities. Commodities are anything that
is produced for sale or exchange whereas a product is produced for your own use or that
of someone else. When you exchange products, you are exchanging things that were not
originally produced for sale. Also commodities don’t have any use-value for their owners
except as a means of echange. So the exchange of products usually involves surplus-products
because owners use the amount they can use for themselves and use the rest for exchange,
and it first took place between members of different communities because they had different
surplus products so they exchanged.
Next Message by Andy is [884].
Question 350 is 188 in 1995WI, 199 in 1996sp, 221 in 1998WI, and 375 in 2011fa:
Question 350 Why could the idea to use land as money arise only when capitalism was
already developed?
[859] Ken: necessary for life. Hans explains that, “Land is the most basic condition
of life. Money is the most “liquid” commodity, the one which most easily changes hands.
Only under capitalism, when people are generally uprooted and separated from the economic
resources on which they depend, and when commodity relation are more important than life
itself, will it occur to them to use land as money.” [1998WI:224].
With the development of capitalism, came the privatization of property. Once land became
private property people were able to exchange the property (for money) like other
commodities. Claiming land as private property is an interesting phenomenon. You could
compare this to a situation that happened in 2001 with Bechtel. Bechtel tried to privatize the
rights to the water in Bolivia.
The lower class was unable to afford the high price Bechtel wanted for water. Water once
was available to all, but with capitalism profits became more important than life.
Water is a basic commodity needed for life, just like land. Before capitalism land and
water were available to everyone. Only in a capitalistic society would water and land be
privatized. By privatizing land and water, they can be used as money.
Hans: Water is an excellent comparison.
First Message by Ken is [108].
[861] Bar: graded B land as money? When referring to use land as money in Capital
Marx says, “Such an idea could only in a bourgeois society, and one which was well
developed. It dates from the last third of the seventeenth century, and the first attempt to implement
the idea on a national scale was made a century later, during The French bourgeois
revolution.” I believe Marx says this because as in many parts he puts the relevance of capitalism
in a historical perspective. During this time there is a transition from mercantilism
to capitalism, where under mercantilism created a real need for an exchangeable commodity
like money for efficient transactions. He makes an interesting observation that before
this humans were used as a commodity through slavery, and goes on to say after that even

140 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
then land was not seen as money. If we look at economic history the Corn Laws debates
between Malthus and Ricardo show how land became money through the use of rents. Land
in essence is a commodity now, which should be inherent in nature for man is used as a commodity
in and of itself, and the right to own it comes from your stature, or right in society.
From a nomadic tribe’s perspective this is a very interesting idea, one that would not come
about if the social relations of capital were not already in place when capital was already
developed. Because the commodity creates a need for ownership, society feels necessary to
give everything ownership.
Hans: Mercantilism took money very seriously, Mercantilists wanted trade surpluses, not because money makes
transactions efficient, but because they wanted to make the transition from production for use to production of
abstract wealth for a surplus.
First Message by Bar is [19].
[865] FacistFrank: response to Bar. Today I think there is a lot of admiration for the
way that the first native inhabitants used to live. They had less of a concept of ownership
when it came to land, now our society does have that concept. I think that the Natives did
have a concept of personal but not private property. It seems strange to me that we started
in a state of less ownership, then thought that we were owners, and now are striving to get
back to where we started in the respect that we don’t own anything. I believe ownership is
an illusion, the only way that someone can own land is to defend their power over it with
violence. The land was there before the so called owner was even alive, he didn’t create it,
so how can he own it? He doesn’t own it, he takes it with violence. If you can control the
land with violence, then you can exclusively reap the benefits from it.
I think that land was more plentiful in Marx’s time, especially in America. Now the
population is much larger, and capital has made it so the goods needed to enforce your
violence on the land are much easier to make, of better quality, and of better quantity. It
all stems from greed and too much individualism. The natives were more collective and
communal. I believe a balance must be struck between the two.
Next Message by FacistFrank is [899].
[871] Clayon: I agree that the idea to use land as money arose when capitalism was
developed, but I would also like to argue that, depending on the culture, the idea that land
has a value predates capitalism. For any group of people that was migratory, they had no
feelings of ownership to the land. But in societies where cities were established, land did
have value. Any city that had a wall to protect itself from outside invaders created at least
some value and idea of ownership to the land. If one wanted protection from any outside
marauders, they would have to pay a price to have a spot of land within the walls. In this
scenario however, the land only has value because something was done to it to add value to
it (the surrounding wall and protection). The difference between this and capitalism is that
capitalism gave value to land without first adding any value to it.
Next Message by Clayon is [872].
Question 351 One important property of gold is also that it does not deteriorate over time,
it does not rust etc. Is this a reflection of the fact that value itself does not deteriorate over
time?

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 141
[857] Jeremy: Gold Standard. Gold is a very interesting medium to be used as a measure
of value. As pointed out in the question, it does not rust, so it does not deteriorate over time.
One of its most valuable properties is its malleability. Gold, and value alike, are able to take
on different forms in different situations. An ounce of gold can be made into jewelery, coin,
conductors, replacement teeth, etc. Value likewise has the ability to do the same, depending
upon the situation and the people involved. Therefore, it could be said that gold is not only
a measure of value, it embodies value through symbolism as well.
Hans: The malleability of gold is relevant not because of symbolism, but because a commodity which represents
value must be divisible and re-combinable at will. But this is not what was asked. The question asked about the
durability of gold, not its malleability.
In general, you are not reading the material quite closely enough. You are not going the last mile trying to
double-check whether the things you get out of the text are the same things Marx was concerned about.
First Message by Jeremy is [372].
Question 352 is 189 in 1995WI, 166 in 1995ut, 200 in 1996sp, 214 in 1997WI, 221 in
1997sp, 213 in 1997ut, 290 in 2003fa, 327 in 2004fa, 321 in 2005fa, 342 in 2007SP, and
377 in 2011fa:
Question 352 Explain in your own words the meaning of Marx’s statement: “Although gold
and silver are not by nature money, money is by nature gold and silver.”
[864] Allen: nature of money. Just as Phelan [2004fa:225] said nothing is by nature
money, because money mainly serves as an appearance of the value of a commodity. Gold
and silver are precious metals that serve as commodities because of their use-value as a
metal, such as fillings for teeth, luxury items, etc. Because gold and silver are precious
metals they have natural properties that can serve as a function of money but “gold and silver
are not by nature money” in itself. “Money is by nature gold and silver” because money is
considered the universal commodity and is a symbol of the commodity and represents it and
its value.
Hans: You should have spent a little more time trying to understand Phelan’s answer. The answer you are giving
is pretty garbled although some of the things you are saying are right.
Message [864] referenced by [867] and [872]. First Message by Allen is [102].
[867] Paul: Gold and Silver. Allen in [864] is right when he says that “nothing is by
nature money.” This is because the value of money is expressed by the commodities which
you can buy with that amount of money. So really it would seem like there is no real physical
nature to money, the physical nature is just that of the things which we associate as money.
Allen states that because “gold and silver are precious metals they have natural properties
that can serve as a function of money. . . ” Marx believes that gold and silver can be used
as money because of the fact that the actual value of the coin is considered to be of equal
value to the value of the labor put into making a given commodity. Basically if you have
$50 worth of gold you are able to purchase $50 worth of labor. Also, an ability that gold and
silver have that Marx believed made them ideal for the use of money was that you can easily
have many different sized coins of these metals that represent different values. So because
gold and silver had these properties, it made them well suited to be used as money.
Hans: The sentence “the value of money is expressed by the commodities which you can buy with that amount
of money” does not mean that money is a worthless thing which everyone in society agrees to accept in exchange
for their valuable commodities. Marx considers such an agreement an impossibility; social relations cannot just
be pretended into existence. Only if money already has value (because it is a commodity itself, as in Marx’s time,

142 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
or because it is backed by monetary policy which maintains its purchasing power, and by the US military, which
makes sure everyone in the world accepts the US dollar, as in the USA today), can it function as money. The
commodities it can buy are an expression of that value, not the source or basis of that value.
What I just wrote is in response to your second and third sentences. The rest of your submission is ok. What
you say in the last two sentences is what Marx meant when he said that “money is by nature gold and silver.”
Message [867] referenced by [872]. First Message by Paul is [152].
[872] Clayon: Re: Gold and Silver. In response to [864] and [867], I believe that there
is an important point that we are overlooking. Yes, money does hold value based upon the
faith of society to uphold the value of said money, but under the Gold Standard, gold had
value not just for being gold, but also for the labor input required for mining, and producing
the gold. The same can be said for Silver. We can see then that the value of money is also a
funtion of labor input.
Hans: You are right, Allen [864] says that gold and silver have use-values as noble metals, i.e., he seems to derive
the value of gold and silver from this use-value and not the labor necessary to mine gold and silver. But you cannot
blame Paul [867] for this oversight; Paul says that gold has value because of its labor input.
Next Message by Clayon is [874].
Exam Question 356 is 191 in 1995WI, 202 in 1996sp, 217 in 1997WI, 216 in 1997ut, 226
in 1998WI, 236 in 1999SP, 280 in 2002fa, 294 in 2003fa, 331 in 2004fa, 346 in 2007SP,
371 in 2009fa, 401 in 2010fa, 383 in 2011fa, and 397 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 356 Marx writes: “The exchange process gives the commodity which it
has designated as money not its value, but its specific form of value.” Which form of value
does Marx mean here? Why does Marx call this form the specific form of value of the money
commodity? (Assume we are under the gold standard.)
[870] Andy: Marx believes that through the exchange process, one commodity is selected
as the General equivalent. This selection process does not give the General equivalent its
value but gives it a specific form of value, which will be associated with that use-value
alone. It cannot be decided by a social agreement how much value a commodity has, but
it can be decided by social agreement which use-value everyone uses as general equivalent.
Another misconception is that money is merely a symbol. Marx gives an example of how
a wedding ring is a symbol, it symbolizes a relation which exists independently, while a
gold coin doesn’t just symbolize value but actually is a value. However money is only the
materialized form of a social relation, but this does not license us to forget that this social
relation has a materialized form. Money is their symbol, and as a symbol it is attracted
by commodities. Money is a symbol that represents a thing, money does not represent the
values but its their equivalent.
Hans: Money is not a symbol of value but it is value – but otherwise your answer is very good.
Next Message by Andy is [873].
Question 358 is 169 in 1995ut, 238 in 1999SP, 348 in 2007SP, and 403 in 2010fa:
Question 358 How, why, and through what is a commodity already money?
[216] Hans: The divinity of humans. This question refers to Marx’s aphorism (the
parentheses are mine):

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 143
The difficulty lies not in comprehending that money (under the gold standard)
is a commodity, but in discovering how, why and through what a
commodity is money.
Similarly one could say:
The difficulty lies not in comprehending that god (in Jesus) became a human,
but in discovering how, why and through what humans are god.
A related issue is that emphasized by CousinIt in [155], that we think that values are
something we are imposing on reality, although they are part of reality.
I am using this question number to respond to [209]. PrivateProperty comes close to saying
that humans believe that god is something outside them, while in reality they themselves
are the gods. They think they need god to make them good, while in reality god is only
the expression of the goodness in them. (I know that I am stretching it, but if I completely
misrepresent you, please speak up!) In the same way, a naive look at commodity circulation
would get the impression that money gives value to the commodities and is the big motor
moving commodities around, while Marx tries to show that money is the expression of the
value which the commodities already have (due to the labor time in them), and money is
passive. What is active is the commodities themselves.
Message [216] referenced by [209] and [2010fa:982]. Next Message by Hans is [219].
Question 359 is 192 in 1995WI, 227 in 1997sp, 219 in 1997ut, 297 in 2003fa, 328 in
2005fa, and 387 in 2011fa:
Question 359 Was Roscher in error when he said that money is a pleasant commodity?
[844] Rampton: Roscher, Money is a pleasant commodity? Yes, Money is not just a
commodity it is the same as the value of money. From Marinda [1995WI:566] gold may be
a commodity in itself, but Roscher does not say what makes gold or any other commodity
become “money.” The only thing he could have meant by calling it “pleasant” is that he
thinks it is fun to have lots of it for oneself, to do with as one pleases. Money does have
as Marx puts it “use-value” to the person who controls it or possesses it. Marx jokes about
being “pleasant” is not a property of something with one can discover in an object. [Hans]
The learned Professor Roscher, after first informing us that “the false definitions of money
may be divided into two main groups: those which make it more, and those which make it
less, than a commodity,” gives us a long and very mixed catalogue of works on the nature
of money, from which it appears that he has not the remotest idea of the real history of the
theory; and then he moralises thus: “For the rest, it is not to be denied that most of the later
economists do not bear sufficiently in mind the peculiarities-that distinguish money from
other commodities” (it is then, after all, either more or less than a commodity!)
Hans: Lots of quotes, but your answer would have needed a simple and coherent explanation why you think the
answer to the question is “yes,” i.e., of Roscher’s mistake.
Message [844] referenced by [846] and [853]. Next Message by Rampton is [889].
[846] Mitternacht: graded A Hardly pleasant. Roscher was definitely in error when he
said that money is a “pleasant commodity”. Rampton [844] does a good job of gathering

144 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
bits and pieces from previous semesters’ class discussions which relate to this question, but
falters in piecing things together.
We needn’t worry about whether money may take on the form of a commodity – this is
one thing which Marx and Roscher agreed upon, but for very different reasons. From the
small quote of Roscher I can’t even make sense of why he thinks that money is a commodity
other than that it false to think money is anything more or less than a commodity. Marx
jumped on top of this absurd reasoning and then to top it off Roscher states that money is a
“pleasant commodity” which Marx simply could not abide. Roscher seems to be saying that
it is pleasant to have money; therefore money is a pleasant commodity. However, Roscher is
mistaken about nature of money as a commodity – he only sees the surface level of exchanges
being money relations and makes incorrect assumptions about the properties of money based
on market interactions involving money. Money and the misunderstandings which surround
it allow capitalists to participate in the exploitation of workers. Workers may also possess
money, but it isn’t “pleasant” for them because it doesn’t serve the same purpose as it would
for a capitalist since they don’t own the means for production.
Message [846] referenced by [853]. Next Message by Mitternacht is [879].
[853] Spawnblade: I like money, don’t you? I’d like to disagree with both Rampton’s
[844] and Mitternacht’s [846]. When I first read over Rampton’s explanation of the commodity
and how money is not a commodity (as we learned early on), I simply felt that saying
‘no’ was too simple in this question. So for the reason of enjoyment, I’d like to take a step
back and look at it in a contrary light.
Marx’s definition of a commodity: “an external object, a thing which through its qualities
satisfies human needs of whatever kind.”
Now in regards to society, money is a medium of exchange to facilitate transactions between
people. According to Marx it has no use-value in and of itself. Now let’s remember
what Marx also says - use-value is in the eye of the beholder. It is different for every individual.
In Roscher’s view, it is possible that the presence of money actually makes him happy
(or the people to whom he refers). This is one method of giving it a use-value, for a simple
mood-lift. So while Mitternacht’s statement about the “nature of money” not being a commodity
is true, money still takes a physical form with which to influence its surroundings, or
perhaps it would only take the idea of money to induce the same influence.
This is one way that money could be seen as a ‘pleasant commodity’. It also ties in
with our oh-so-favorite capitalists who hoard their money in droves despite it not physically
helping anyone (since it remains unused).
Hans: You don’t understand Marx’s explanation of money, and you are barking up the wrong tree: the issue is not
whether money is a commodity, but whether money can be said to have the attribute of being “pleasant.”
First Message by Spawnblade is [140].
[856] Papageorgio: Err. Many people may argue over this question as it can be very
opinion based if looked at on surface value. Yes to some money feels like a pleasant commodity.
Yes to some money is not pleasant. A quote from Hans in [2005fa:743] must be
cited here as it shows in simplicity this dilemma, “The pleasantness of having money comes
with a price, namely, the pain of those who don’t have money.” When one has sufficient
money for their needs they may feel great: clothes can be washed, dishes cleaned, food put

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 145
on the table, children supported and yes money feels pleasant. But on the same token as one
walks the street and sees the less fortunate begging for money the pain of money can be seen
by those who look on. The reason the money brings this pleasant feeling to those who have
it is the fact that money can be used to be traded for all goods, it can bring them anything
they feel, most people in the world feel that everything has a price and can be bought with
money. Security is a feeling people receive with money and to many that is pleasant. Pleasant
is probably not the word to describe money though especially as it can be so opinion
based. Many things that money can lead to greed and hurt many families and lives. Money
can be the cause of someone to be jumped, robbed, or in all the movies the bully stealing
the lunch money. Money can bring many ills to one’s life. I feel and I feel that Marx feels
that money is not what is pleasant at all it does not contain that property in itself. Something
I think that is relevant to this is an example from my life, as I make money, I spend more
money, I wish I had more as I get more. My friend has no job and he gets by quite well he
is not unpleasant but actually quite happy without needing to spend money for all his meals
and such. It is not pleasant to take advantage of the working class and Roscher really has no
credibility claiming that money is pleasant.
Message [856] referenced by [888]. First Message by Papageorgio is [151].
[888] Andy: I believe that Roscher was not in error. Money is a commodity because
it requires labor to produce it. Money holds a value which cannot be expressed except for
other commodities. Money can also be exchanged for other commodities. However the main
point of what Roscher means is that money is a pleasant commodity because it is pleasant to
have money.
Hans: Nobody doubts that it is pleasant to have money. But the last submission about this question which came
before you, Papageorgio’s [856], made a good argument that it is nevertheless incorrect to call money a pleasant
commodity. If you think Roscher was right you should have addressed Papageorgio’s arguments.
First Message by Andy is [45].
[896] Nstew: Is money a pleasant commodity? Was Roscher in error? Personally I think
there are two ways to look at this. Marx has clearly stated that he considers money to be a
commodity because its value is defined by the exchange of money for commodities. Money
can be traded, it has an exchange value which are both characteristics of a commodity, so yes
I think money is a commodity. Roscher used the phrase that money is not only a commodity
but a “pleasant commodity”. What does he mean by saying it is a “pleasant commodity”?
I think Roscher is referring to the pleasantness of having money and what it is worth in
the economy. I think he is getting emotion mixed in by stating that money is a “pleasant
commodity” instead of just looking at money for what it is. I think many people who have
a lot of money might categorize money as a “pleasant commodity” but when it comes down
to it money is just a commodity. So I think his statement is false.
Hans: The definition of commodity is “a use-value produced for exchange.” Gold is a commodity, and Marx was
living under the gold standard, therefore during his time money was a commodity.
First Message by Nstew is [593].
[903] Mick: graded C Roscher’s erroneous claim. Is money really a pleasant commodity?
This question incites a multitude of responses that would argue the contrary. Money
often disguises, and therefore falsely represents the value of a commodity, particularly by
obfuscating the amount of labor that was required to produce a certain product. If there is
inflation of the currency used to hire labor, but the price paid for the labor is the same, then

146 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
clearly the worker is not receiving just compensation for his work, because the buying power
he receives as payment is mitigated through the abundance of the currency he is paid in. So
through the abstraction of money, and the ability for wealthy individuals and institutions to
control the circulation of money, its value is able to be artificially changed in relation to the
labor it hires.
Hans: Explanation of profits by manipulations of the monetary system are popular in some circles, but they are
not based on Marx.
First Message by Mick is [388].
Question 360 is 230 in 1998WI, 298 in 2003fa, and 402 in 2012fa:
Question 360 List and briefly discuss all those theories of money which Marx mentioned on
pages 184:3/oo – 186:1 and about which he said they were incorrect.
[892] Nstew: Theories of money. Marx says that the first misconception of money itself
does not have value and the value of money is imaginary. He says its value comes from
social agreement. He says that a commodity becomes money by the joint action of all other
commodities, by a social agreement which decides that every commodity should express
its value in that specific commodity. Since commodities can express their values only in
something that has value itself then money becomes a commodity. Back when money was
backed by the gold system it represented a certain amount of gold and the price of gold would
fluctuate which would cause the prices of commodities to fluctuate. Through the exchange
process a commodity is selected as the “general equivalent” which is given a specific form
of value. By social agreement it is decided which use-value everyone uses as a general
equivalent.
The second misconception of money according to Marx is that “Money is merely a symbol”.
He says that a gold coin does not symbolize value, it is value. What Marx is saying
here is that even though money is a materialized form of a social relation, but that the social
relation has a materialized form.
The third misconception is that money is an arbitrary product of human reflection. If
money is an arbitrary form of human reflection then the social agreement which has decided
the use-value becomes unfamiliar. Marx stresses that money is a commodity and that its
value is based on what commodities it is exchangeable for. Money like every other commodity
can express the magnitude of its value only relatively through other commodities.
The fourth misconception of money Marx talks about is the failure to identify that what
distinguishes money from the other commodities. What Marx is arguing here is that a commodity
is the same as money and inherently has money traits.
Hans: Under the gold standard, gold does not have a price but gold is the price. And the value of money is not
based on what commodities it is exchangeable for, but it is based on its labor content, and the commodities which a
certain amount of money can buy are an expression of the value of money. But other than this, a very good answer.
Next Message by Nstew is [893].
Question 363 is 207 in 1996sp, 392 in 2011fa, and 406 in 2012fa:
Question 363 Are people, by their atomistic attitude towards each other, responsible for
their lack of control over their own social relations?

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 147
[849] Aaron: Atomistic tendencies. As Marx describes here, the fetish like characteristics
of money involves the theory that commodities need not show any “initiative” of their
own, and they still hold a readily usable value in the form of an existing commodity that is
ready for exchange. Marx also uses interesting logic in describing the relationship of the
commodity, to the the producer. He says that the fetish like character of commodities is a
result of the atomistic attitude of the producer. As Hans notes in the annotations, the riddle
of the money fetish is the same as the riddle of the commodity fetish. I believe that the
answer to question 363 is Yes, according to the logic of Marx. People are responsible for
their own lack of control over their own social relations because Marx believes that they are
at the root of all social concerns as a producer of commodity. They themselves create fetish
like characteristics of money and commodities.
Hans: Against your argument that the commodity producers are responsible for the fetish-like character of the
commodity, Marx says in 173:1/oo that capitalism is “a social formation in which the production process has
the mastery over men, and man does not yet master the production process.” Generally, Marx does not make the
individuals responsible for their social relations.
Message [849] referenced by [850] and [890]. First Message by Aaron is [31].
[850] CousinIt: graded A+ Control of Social Relations. Due to the fetish-like character
of the commodity, which is extended to the fetish-like nature of money as the universal
equivalent commodity, human relations are carried out through things. Thus people are
alienated not only from the products of their labor, but from their very humanity by way of
this subsumption of all things, including those things-human, and thus the alienated nature
of their social relations as atomistic, individual-isolationist.
This question can be read in two different ways; we can read it as (a) asking if people are
responsible for creating their inability to control their social relations or we can read it as
(b) asking if people are responsible for maintaining or responsible for changing their lack of
control over their social relations (as I interpret Panacea [1996sp:287] as doing).
From the beginning of commodity production, the production of things not useful to me
for the purpose of trading them for things that are useful for me, we can see the seeds of
atomism being planted in the deep soil of our past. As commodity production, through the
demands of the exchange process, becomes mediated through a central/universal commodity
(i.e. money), the atomism becomes even more entrenched in everyday thinking and action.
For the capitalist, the focus is on self-valorizing capital, with little or no regard for anything
else. For the worker the focus is on survival through the selling of their labor-power. In capitalism
all that matters is that things are moved along and accumulation continues indefintely,
regardless of the human and environmental costs.
If we are asking the question according to interpretation (a) above, we might say that
yes, people are responsible for their alienation because at any point along the way they
could have noticed that they were losing control of their social relations and taken steps
toward an alternative productive/economic system or mode of being-in-the-world ... This
is another way to say what Aaron [849] is trying to say in stating that people are “at the
root of all social concerns as producers of commodity.” On the other hand, we might qualify
this answer by asserting that, perhaps, by the time people noticed that they were losing
control of their social relations, they were already too deeply entrenched in the ideology
(false consciousness? occupational psychosis?) of the commodity-exchange (a cornerstone

148 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
of which is an atomistic attitude toward competitors, clients, and employer/employees) to
be psychologically, physically, or emotionally able to do anything about it. It is as if we are
suffering from a society-wide sociopathic disorder that is going pandemic.
The other possible answer to this interpretation (a) of the question is that people are not
responsible for creating their condition, but merely, both capitalist and worker, are victims
of the social-economic structure that has somehow sprung-up around them as some sort
of natural development of determined, pre-destined, ‘natural’ human history, as a social-
Darwinist might conclude.
Are people responsible for maintaining or for changing the condition of being out of
control over social relations, as per my interpretation (b) of the original question? As Hans
points out in response to Panacea, the capitalist has more resources for making changes but
by doing so puts himself out of business. It could also be said that the worker believes that
he is “biting the hand that feeds” if he moves against capitalism. However, the banality of
the situation becomes painfully unavoidable as the damage to the environment starts to have
real undeniable effects on human and other lives and as the capitalist system becomes clearly
environmentally/economically unsustainable for a forseeable future when we consider that
the rest of the world is beginning to demand ‘first-world’ standards of living/consumption
of resources.
However, if we as a people, as a species, do not take responsibility for our illness, who
will? As stated by Hans in response to Panacea (and paraphrased with certain liberties taken
by me), the situation will not be solved by individual action but only through universal collective
scrambling to avoid extinction. Perhaps nature will seal our fate, as it does in the case
of the cancer victim who does not take responsibility for her illness and thereby fails to seek
out or enact a cure and dies. According to Desai (in his book “Marx’s Revenge...”), Marx
knew clearly that capitalism would have to be pushed to its limits before mankind would
do anything to change or abolish it. These limits are fast becoming evolutionarily apparent.
The limits of capitalism are social, economic, environmental, physical, emotional, and spiritual
limits. It could be said that our attitude of atomism exists on the social-spiritual plane
and that it is the hardest limit to apprehend and to affect on the large scale. However, Marx
also knew that precisely some sort of spiritual evolutionary step, an ‘awakening’ of human
consciousness, would be the necessary pre-requisite if capitalism would ever be abolished
by way of human agency, rather than by way of social-economic-environmental-cosmic disaster.
My opinion is, ...better sooner than later.... I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired in
a world that is crumbling where, on the surface, no one cares for anything other than their
own comfort and security at the expense of the environment and the less fortunate. Capitalism
systematically, attritionally, and perpetually sickens us all, including the capitalist, unto
death...unto extinction....
Next Message by CousinIt is [877].
[890] Rampton: Social Relations. Yes according to Marx. People are responsible for
themselves and their own actions and for everything they do. Marx believes that they are at
the root of all social concerns as a producers of commodities. In a court decision in 1914
Benjamin Cardozo wrote that every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 149
to determine what shall be done with his own body.... Now known as the right or principle
of autonomy, this concept pervades the law, undergirding virtually all rights relating to
the body, particularly those grounded in the right of privacy. Nowhere is this clearer than
within the realm of healthcare law and ethics where patient autonomy has become the dominant
principle governing healthcare decision-making. We live in the time of the triumph of
autonomy....
Hans: Your first three sentences are directly lifted from [849]. The rest of your answer has nothing to do with
Marx, and I am wondering if you confused the definitions of “atomistic” and “autonomous”? “Atomistic” means:
disregardful of one’s social connections.
Next Message by Rampton is [891].
Question 373 is 236 in 1997sp, 228 in 1997ut, 238 in 1998WI, 248 in 1999SP, 259 in
2000fa, 272 in 2001fa, 296 in 2002fa, 310 in 2003fa, 348 in 2004fa, 342 in 2005fa, 363
in 2007SP, 373 in 2008fa, 388 in 2009fa, 404 in 2011fa, and 419 in 2012fa:
Question 373 How is the value of money expressed?
[408] Bmellor: Take my home for just 200,000 hamburgers. Marx suggests what all
accountants know but only economists point out, the value of money is in the “possible
commodities” which we can purchase with money. Some countries use 1,000’s in place of
one piece of currency so of course the value is not in the number printed on the paper. If it
costs 30 Yuan for meal in China and the exchange rate is 1 dollar equals 7 Yuan then that is
a reasonable meal.
But forget the exchange rate, the money is valued in the goods you can purchase. There
is a Wendy’s commercial on TV where a man is looking at a contract that he is about to
sign and says: “Wow! That is 1,000,000 Junior Bacon Cheese Burgers.” The rest of the
commercial shows people expressing the value of certain items: clothing, cars, furniture,
speeding tickets, etc... in “Junior Bacon Cheese Burgers” instead of dollars.
Essentially that is what your money is worth, the commodities you can buy. Which is
essentially what all economists view when looking at the cost of something; opportunity
cost gives a purchase its economic value, this comes about (partly) by looking at the other
commodities you could have purchased instead of the commodity you did purchase. While
an accountant looks at the dollar money you spent instead of what else you could have
bought.
Message [408] referenced by [415] and [426]. Next Message by Bmellor is [466].
[415] Hans: The virgin birth of an expression. Bmellor [408] says that the value of
money consists in the things money can buy. Marx, by contrast, says that the value of
money is expressed in the things one can buy, but this is not the source of this value. Under
the gold standard, the source of money’s value was the labor necessary to mine the gold, and
nowadays I think the source of the dollar’s international value is US monetary policy, backed
by its military might which, among other things, is the ultimate reason for the agreement of
Saudi Arabia to price oil in dollars. More about this see my [2007SP:599].
In our day-to-day interactions we only see the expressions of the value of money and
there is no direct empirical link to the source of this value. This lead to the error, which Le
Trosne made in question 64, of thinking this expression just springs into existence without

150 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
some material force backing it up. This is utterly implausible just on practical grounds: so
much hinges on the value of the dollar that it would have been overturned long ago had it
not been backed by some real, and in fact quite formidable, material force. Brandon [383]
calls Marx’s way of thinking “supply-side economics”; another possible designation would
be “depth economics.”
Message [415] referenced by [383], [418], [421], [426], [635], [648], and [662]. Next Message by Hans is [416].
[426] Hans: Marxian Analysis of a Cheeseburger Commercial. My [415] tried to
correct a careless formulation in the first sentence of Bmellor’s [408], but now I’d like to
comment on his very interesting example of a Cheeseburger commercial. Bmellor writes:
There is a Wendy’s commercial on TV where a man is looking at a contract
that he is about to sign and says: “Wow! That is 1,000,000 Junior Bacon
Cheese Burgers.” The rest of the commercial shows people expressing the
value of certain items: clothing, cars, furniture, speeding tickets, etc... in
“Junior Bacon Cheese Burgers” instead of dollars.
The purpose of the commercial is to imprint the notion of Junior Bacon Cheese Burgers
in the viewer’s brain and to let the viewer know how inexpensive these Cheese Burgers are.
We can use Marx’s categories to explain how the advertisers did this.
Normally, if you want to say how cheap (or expensive) something is, i.e., if you want to
express its value, you simply name its price. This has two drawbacks: (a) if the ad says that
a Junior Bacon is 99 cents plus tax, then people will think: if it’s so cheap it can’t be very
good, and (b) who cares about these small amounts anyway.
But in 189:1 Marx says that the value of money cannot be expressed by naming its price,
rather it is expressed by enumerating all the things money can buy. Since the price of a
Junior Bacon is approximately $1, the Wendy advertisers applied this alternative expression
of value not to money but to the Junior Bacon Cheeseburgers. This cunning move eliminates
both of the above drawbacks. (a) If you say “this house is worth 200,000 Junior Bacon
Cheeseburgers, and that thing here is worth xx Junior Bacon Cheseburgers,” etc., then nobody
will say: “the cheeseburgers can’t be very nutritious if you have to pay 200,000 of
them for this house.” (I am wondering if Marx has anticipated this with his mysterious pronouncement
in 147:3/o that the equivalent form of value does not contain a quantitative value
determination.) Rather they will think the Cheeseburgers sit at the center of the Universe if
you can express the value of everything in them. And (b) the Cheeseburgers’ own low value
translates into impressive high numbers for everything else.
Next Message by Hans is [428].
[594] Nstew: The value of money is expressed in the goods you can buy. Let’s say
that I wanted to buy a taco and it cost $1 dollar. Now if I were this same taco down in
Mexico it would cost me about $10 pesos which is the same cost as in the U.S. but forget
about the exchange rate because your money is valued on the commodities you can buy.
Opportunity cost gives a purchase its economic value and this is measured by comparing the
other commodities you could buy with that same amount of money. Money only represents
a common medium in order to exchange goods or services and allows us an opportunity to
have a common way to place a value on commodities.
Message [594] referenced by [2008fa:1149]. Next Message by Nstew is [614].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 151
[629] Alex: graded C Money has many expressions in Marx’s thinking, though in the
end it all relates to purchasing and exchange. Marx describes money as something that
can be exchanged for a commodity. In this particular context Marx talks about money as a
controlling factor for exchange largely. In later chapters Marx goes on to explain money as
a means of capitalist augmentation. Not only does the capitalist own the labor power, but he
also owns the money that results from the sale of the commodity. The capitalist also sets the
price adding in what is more than socially necessary for the price of the commodity.
Overall, Marx shows that money is not an object but is a controlling factor maintained
by the capitalist. He also draws attention to the fact that the value of money is expressed
in exchange value, when two parties exchange something for something more valuable, to
them at least. However, true value in exchange is much more complicated than Condillac
would make it seem.
Hans: Profits do not come from prices being higher than “socially necessary.” Marx discussed this extensively in
chapter Five.
Next Message by Alex is [630].
[632] Rmuscolino: The value of money is expressed through the expanded form of value.
The expanded form of value is an endless series of equations, which become the specific
relative form of value of the money commodity. This endless series is already socially given
in the prices of the commodities. “We only need to read the quotations of a price list backwards,
to find the magnitude of the value of money expressed in all possible commodities.”
Marx states that money does not have to work to establish its form of value. Instead, this
form of value is already given. Money becomes “directly exchangeable” since all goods
express their values in money.
Next Message by Rmuscolino is [634].
[635] Matt: The value of Money. When one first looks at money they don’t see the true
value and where it comes from, all they see is what money can buy and or the expressions of
the value of money. But according to Hans [415], during Marx’s time the source of money’s
value came from the gold standard, which equaled the labor time necessary to mine the gold.
It was the labor time congealed into each piece of gold which backed the value of money
and made it exchangeable.
Money itself, according to the annotations, “does not have to work to establish its form of
value. Rather, this form of value is already given.” It is this form of value that allows money
to act as the social relationship between the direct exchange of money and the commodity.
The Annotations say, “Since all goods express their values in money, money becomes directly
exchangeable for them.” If all goods did not express their value through money, then
one could not buy a quart of milk without the direct exchange for another commodity, such
as rice. Money makes the exchange process easier since everything can be bought and sold
with the value that has been placed into it.
Hans: You only look at money as means of circulation; you ignore its function as measure of value.
Next Message by Matt is [636].
[638] Jenn: graded A expression of the value of money (not the source). The value
of money is expressed in what commodities it can purchase. Initially, all commodities express
value in the expanded relative form, and then their value is expressed in the general
equivalent. Although the general equivalent (gold standard in Marx’s days) gives money the

152 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
source of its value, the money actually expresses its value when a commodity owner sells
their commodity in money form at a price the seller determines themselves.
I believe in my in-class answer I discussed the source of the value of money, not the
expression of the value of money. Although, gold as a commodity is one way the value of
money can be expressed.
Hans: I am writing this note in 2012fa since participants in this class refer to this message. The fact that I gave
this message an A does not mean every sentence of it is correct. The sentence “the general equivalent gives money
the source of its value” is wrong. The source of the value of gold (the money under the gold standard) is the labor
necessary to mine the gold. Money does not get value from being a general equivalent. The causality is the reverse:
gold can become general equivalent only because it is a commodity that contains labor.
I may have overlooked this since exams are a lot of work, or I may have had other reasons to give this message
an A, maybe it was much better than the in-class version.
Message [638] referenced by [2012fa:738]. Next Message by Jenn is [748].
[648] Bennett: The value of money is expressed or represented as capital that the certain
country whose currency it is, has a hold of. There needs to be enough capital backing the
currency in the open market. In the U.S. there are gold reserves at Fort Knox that give our
currency its value. Without a “real” object of value there would be no difference in value
between a $1 bill and a $100 bill, they would just be worth the value of the paper that the
money is printed on. This gives money its value, it is also known as the gold standard.
Hans: You are confusing the source of one dollar’s value with the expression of one dollar’s value, compare [415].
Next Message by Bennett is [649].
[662] Rampton: Marx says the value of money is expressed in the things one can buy.
That is not the only source of this value. The gold standard, the source of value came from
the labor necessary to the mine the gold or mainly the labor. Hans, you said in [415] ...
Marx, by contrast, says that the value of money is expressed in the things
one can buy, but this is not the source of this value. Under the gold standard,
the source of money’s value was the labor necessary to mine the gold, and
nowadays I think the source of the dollar’s international value is US monetary
policy, backed by its military might which, among other things, is the
ultimate reason for the agreement of Saudi Arabia to price oil in dollars.
I think the expression of money appears without us noticing it, nothing to back it up.
Hans: Your second sentence indicates that the expression of the value of money is one of the sources of value.
This is wrong. The two must be distinguished.
Next Message by Rampton is [664].
[663] Papageorgio: When one speaks of the value of money it is important to know that
the value is not expressed by just saying a price. The value of money truly is expressed by
the things one can buy, not to say this is the source of value. This is not the source of value
but is how it is expressed. The value of money is indeed being expressed when we exchange
other commodities with money, I touched on this in my original answer. The money is
able to be exchanged for all commodities not just a single commodity. When commodities
are purchased with money it shows an example of the expression of money although it is
imperative to realize the buyer is not the one choosing the amount of money it is the seller
who chooses what can be bought. It can also be of help to remember that as I wrote earlier
in the gold standard gold was money but gold actually had a value as well so gold actually
the value is expressed in two different ways depending on how you look at gold as an regular

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 153
commodity it is expressed in its price but if we regard it as money it is expressed the same as
we have been talking about by it being able to be exchanged to purchase other commodities.
Which is why I stated before that it is different than in our day as our money does not really
have both aspects. So money is exchangeable to all commodities which is how its value is
expressed.
Hans: The “mint price” of gold is economically not a price; it simply defines how much gold is represented by a
monetary unit. Otherwise your answer is good. It is often overlooked that the fact that money can buy everything
is also an expression of the value of money.
Next Message by Papageorgio is [665].
[668] Bmellor: Money value. The value of money is expressed in its exchange value.
Commodities are traded for the money you have. If the money buys a lot of commodities it
is valuable, if it can’t you can still use it to make a fire, at the very least it is worth the fabric
or paper it is printed on.
Next Message by Bmellor is [669].
[670] Scott: value of money. The value of money is expressed in the things you can buy
with it. For example, if I have $100, it can be expressed in the commodities I choose to
purchase, such as a playstation, bike, etc.. I agree with BeckySue “The value of money is
expressed through its ability to be traded for any commodity by means of direct exchange”
[2002fa:149]. The power of money is shown by its ability to be exchangeable for any commodity.
Next Message by Scott is [671].
[694] Ryoung: Value of Money. The value of money is expressed through that which it
has the power to purchase. Money is only as good as the goods that one is able to buy with
it. This is the one way in which the value of money is expressed.
Hans: Your middle sentence, “money is only as good as the goods that one is able to buy with it,” is the neoclassical
theory which tries to say that money itself is nothing, only the real goods count. Marx understands things differently.
For him, money is not an idea but a real good. It has value because labor is necessary to dig the gold out of the
ground. This value is expressed through the goods it can buy. This does not mean it draws its value from those
goods.
Next Message by Ryoung is [695].
[725] Paul: The value of money is expressed through the commodities that are bought
with it. If a seller of chairs says that one chair can be bought with $30 then the value of
the chair was just expressed through the amount of money you can buy it. All commodities
express their values in money, and because of this the value of money is expressed in these
commodities and what commodities you can buy for an amount of money.
Hans: Your in-class answer had some useful clarifications; why didn’t you take them over into your resubmission?
Paul: Yes, I probably should have added those. For the sake of the archives what I said in my in class answer is
that if you were to have a $10 bill, you then know that with that money you could buy a hat with that money. But
you also know that you will not be able to purchase a car with it. Just by the fact that you know that you cannot buy
a car with a $10 bill, the money has then expressed its value.
Next Message by Paul is [726].
[728] Mick: graded C The value of money is expressed in its equivalent relation to other
commodities (goods and services). This is why currencies are traded in pairs, because the
value of one currency must be given in terms of another currency in order for you to understand
its worth. If money was only worth what it cost to produce it, then we would not use it
in transactions. We would simply use real commodities with inherent use values. Money’s
value is effected not only by its equivalent value in another commodity, but it is also subject

154 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
to fluctuate in value based on supply and demand. The values between a commodity and
money are perpetually defining, as well as perpetually changing.
The value of money has both quantitative and qualitative properties. Its quantitative property
is restricted by supply, but qualitatively it has no limit. Its value is manifest both as payment,
and a means of purchase. As means of payment, it is the final of a two part transaction,
where as a means of purchase it is required before the good/service can be acquired.
Hans: In Marx’s time, under the gold standard, money was indeed worth what it costed to produce it, and it was
nevertheless used in transactions. Otherwise I recognize elements of Marx’s theory in your answer, but they do not
hang together, and most of them are irrelevant for the question asked.
Next Message by Mick is [730].
[732] Wade: “The expression of the value of a commodity in gold – x commodity A = y
money commodity – is the commodity’s money form or its price.” Example if 300 pounds
of tin = the value of 3 ounces of gold then whatever the exchange rate of money for gold
for 3 ounces would buy you the 300 pounds of tin. Gold is the Character of Money...... The
expression of money is that money can buy everything......
Hans: At Marx’s time, there was no such thing as an “exchange rate of money for gold,” but money was gold.
Next Message by Wade is [775].
[733] Allen: The value of money is expressed by the amount of use-value it can purchase.
Money in itself has no use-value, it is only used as a means to trade one commodity for
another commodity. Money is usually backed by a standard (gold, Silver) to create its value.
Once the value is established it is then used to trade for commodities for their use-value.
Hans: Means of circulation is not the only function of money.
Next Message by Allen is [734].
[737] Aaron: The value of money is expressed in being money itself. Marx points out that
money does not have to do any work to establish its form of value, simply because money is
money, and it can buy anything and is directly exchangeable. The simple fact that money can
be used to exchange for any commodity and can buy anything is a simple expression of the
value of money. The value of anything is not simply a statement about the price of certain
commodities in the market, but can be an expression of the social nature of production and
the exchange process. The value of the actual money can be expressed in the price of a
certain basket of goods as well. In today’s market, we can value the money in the market
by what it can be exchanged for over a period of time. As oil prices rise, the price of most
goods in the market is also rising. We can see a certain aspect of the value of our money
deteriorating from a past value. This may be a result of the relationship in the production
and social costs of goods.
Hans: Instead of saying money is directly exchangeable because it is money, the right way to express Marx’s
theory would be: gold is directly exchangeable because it is the commodity which by a social act has been selected
as the commodity in which all other goods express their values.
Next Message by Aaron is [738].
[746] Ande: The expression of the value of money is simply an expanded form of value.
Money does not have to work to establish its form of value. The value of the money is
already given. Since goods are shown by their values of money, or what they cost, money
then becomes “directly exchangeable” for any good or service. In a sense money can buy
anything. The value of money is given, a five dollar bill is worth five dollars and a one dollar
bill is worth one dollar its value is given it is just expressed in different ways. Although the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 155
value is given the value is not relative to other forms of currency/money, the dollar is not
relative in value to the euro. Over all the expression of the value of money is just a drawn
out explanation of value, and as we learned by reading the book, every good in the market
place has some sort of value.
Hans: Your very last statement “every good in the market place has some sort of value” is ambiguous. It could
be understood to mean that every good in the market place has a use-value for someone, because worthless goods
would not be traded. But this is not what Marx means when he uses the word “value” by itself, without the “use-”
prefix. The exchange process is a process of equalization, and “value,” as Marx uses the word, is that commonality
in the commodities which is expressed by this exchange.
Next Message by Ande is [747].
[756] Wasatch: Money expresses its value through the commodities it purchases and
has the ability to purchase. Hans mentions on page 239 of our handbook that “money can
buy everything is” and the fact that it can is “a powerful expression of the value of money.”
Money expresses its value through all commodities because “all [commodities] express their
values in money” (Hans notes on pg. 239) And because the origin of a commodity’s usevalue
and exchange value is something that is inherent we can see how money expresses its
value through the commodity.
During the gold standard era money’s value was also expressed by gold. This gold had
use and exchange value. After the gold standard period money is left on its own which is
why it can only express it’s value by the commodities it can purchase.
CousinIt said in [577] that “Money enables the sale and purchase and of all other commodities
by way of its form of value as the general equivalent”. This form of value is unique
from other commodities “by the fact that it bears the stamp of social approval” (Hans [580]).
This is what I call the social standard, which is as effective as the gold standard as far as
giving money this form of value.
Hans: The expression of value and the source of value are two different things. A person may express his drunkenness
by singing; but the source of his drunkenness is drinking, not singing. Modern theories which say that money
does not need a source of value, that everyone just accepts money by social agreement, would be considered by
Marx as irrealist as the explanation of babies by storks.
Next Message by Wasatch is [757].
[760] Brody: The value of money is defined by what can be purchased by that amount of
money. Such as in the Mcdonald’s commercials where a dollar is not defined as a dollar it is
one double cheeseburger. This is a prime example of money being defined by the commodities
it can purchase. The fact that money can buy everything is a powerful expression of the
value of money.
Next Message by Brody is [776].
[823] Bar: content B– late penalty 9% The value of money is expressed as a commodity
that it represents. True, money des have a value relative to other currency as itself is a
commodity, but the difference is the use-value of money which is very low. The value of
money is therefore expressed in relative terms. In addition to the before said, the value of
money is expressed in terms of society in many ways like commodity fetishism where social
relation are dependent on money, for example a women marries a man because he has a lot
of money.
Hans: The use-value of gold is not low: its high conductivity and resistence to corrosion are very valuable properties.
But this physical use-value is overshadowed by its use-value as the general equivalent, and modern money
can do without physical use-value altogether.

156 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Under the gold standard, the value of money comes from gold (since money was exchangeable into a set amount
of gold), but its expression is not the same as its source.
Next Message by Bar is [824].
Question 391 is 251 in 1997sp, 251 in 1998WI, 261 in 1999SP, 287 in 2001fa, and 380 in
2007SP:
Question 391 If the price of 1 ton of iron is 1 ounce of gold, why can the owner of the iron
not use his ton of iron to “buy” whatever costs 1 ounce of gold?
[591] Goethe: To use the ton of iron to purchase whatever costs one ounce of gold, we
would need proof that the labor put into the iron is socially necessary. The proof is the social
stamp of approval that is represented by money exchanged for the gold or iron. The money
allows us to transfer the “social approval” to the sellers of the commodities we want. [580]
Next Message by Hans is [596].
[643] Inter: Iron and Gold. The reason why 1 ton of iron cannot buy what 1 ounce of
gold can is because iron does not have the social stamp of approval to act as the general
equivalent. Both gold and iron have value and use-value but iron lacks the social recognition
as the general equivalent. Being a general equivalent is one of the necessary aspects of
money.
Hans: I’d like you to look at it from the point of view of social organization of production, not the market. Iron
contains labor, and this labor gives the iron producer the right to access the labor of others. But before it can do
this, the labor in the iron needs to be certified that it is indeed socially necessary labor. This happens by the sale of
iron, which turns iron into gold.
Next Message by Inter is [644].
[674] Jeremy: If the price of 1 ton of iron is 1 ounce of gold, the iron does not have the
ability to buy whatever costs 1 ounce of gold. This is due to a couple of reasons, first, gold
is the measure of value and also has the option of being exchangeable as money. Gold is
in circulation, therefore it can be used to buy products. Secondly, the owner could barter
his iron for another commodity, but he cannot demand someone take his iron as a form of
payment because they may have no need for it or do not see it as an exchangeable item for
their commodity. As stated before, gold measures value and acts as money, iron is merely a
commodity that is measured by gold and does not take the form of money.
Next Message by Jeremy is [675].
[688] FacistFrank: The more abstract Marxian answer would be that the ton of iron needs
to prove that it is worth the ounce of gold, but to me this seems an impossible contradiction,
because it has to exchanged for the value in other goods in order to prove itself, it think this
is an example of dialectic materialism, that Marx adapted from Hegel. The contradiction
is inherent unavoidable, and also serves to justify it. But maybe I don’t have a complete
understanding of this Marxian point. The more practical explanation to me is, the value in
the ton of iron needs to enter a liquid and practical form in order to be exchanged in most
cases, liquid and perhaps exchangeable. I believe this is an example of the expanded form
of value.
I would not like or accept payment for my labor in tons of iron, I would not be able to
store it, and would have a very hard time reselling it. Only the people that need iron would
be willing to be paid in iron. We need liquid and practically exchangeable money or even
gold. A representation of value deprived of its bodily form and use value.

Message [688] referenced by [693]. Next Message by FacistFrank is [689].
[700] Sparky: 1 ton iron = 1 ounce gold
1 ounce gold= 1 ton cotton
t ton iron (not =) to 1 ton cotton
U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 157
The reason 1 ton of iron cannot be used to “buy” whatever costs 1 ounce of gold, in my
example 1 ton of cotton, because iron is not viewed as the general equivalent that gold is
viewed as, since as the annotations say “the dominant role of money ... deprives the other
commodities of the capacity to serve as the expressions of value themselves.” [p. 258]
You cannot force someone to take your iron just because it may be worth 1 ounce of gold
– that person may not have a use value for iron but would for gold because he would see the
use value of the gold as the general equivalent, as that being easier to exchange for goods
and services.
Next Message by Sparky is [702].
[711] Raynold: Given the process by which gold has been turned into the measure of
value and exchange-value into price, all commodities when expressed in their prices are
merely imagined quantities of gold of various magnitudes. Since they are thus various quantities
of the same thing, namely gold, they are similar, comparable and commensurable,
and thus arises the technical necessity of relating them to a definite quantity of gold as a
unit of measure. This unit of measure then develops into a scale of measure by being divided
into aliquot parts which are in turn subdivided into aliquot parts. [2] The quantities
of gold themselves, however, are measured by weight. The standard weights generally used
for metals accordingly provide ready-made standard measures, which originally also served
as standard measures of price wherever metallic currency was in use. Since commodities
are no longer compared as exchange-values which are measured in terms of labour-time,
but as magnitudes of the same denomination measured in terms of gold, gold, the measure
of value, becomes the standard of price. The comparison of commodity-prices in terms of
different quantities of gold thus becomes crystallised in figures denoting imaginary quantities
of gold and representing gold as a standard measure divided into aliquot parts. Gold
as measure of value and as standard of price has quite distinct specific functions, and the
confusion of the one with the other has led to the most absurd theories. Gold as materialised
labour-time is a measure of value, as a piece of metal of definite weight it is the standard
of price. Gold becomes the measure of value because as an exchange-value it is compared
with the exchange-values of other commodities; in its aspect as a standard of price a definite
quantity of gold serves as a unit for other quantities of gold. Gold is the measure of value
because its value is variable; it is the standard of price because it has been established as an
invariable unit of weight. Here, as in all cases of measuring quantities of the same denomination,
stability and exactitude of the proportions is essential. The necessity of establishing
a quantity of gold as the unit of measure and its aliquot parts as subdivisions of this unit has
given rise to the idea that a fixed ratio of values has been set up between a definite quantity
of gold, whose value is of course variable, and the exchange-values of commodities. But
such a view simply ignores the fact that the exchange-values of commodities are turned into
prices, into quantities of gold, before gold becomes the standard of price. Quite irrespective
of any changes in the value of gold, different quantities of gold will always represent the

158 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
same ratio of values with regard to one another. lf the value of gold should fall by 1,000 per
cent, then the value of twelve ounces of gold would still be twelve times bigger than that of
one ounce of gold, and so far as prices are concerned what matters is only the proportion
of the different quantities of gold to one another. Since, on the other hand, a rise or fall in
the value of an ounce of gold does not in any way affect its weight, the weight of its aliquot
parts remains likewise unaffected; gold can thus always serve as a stable standard of price,
regardless of any changes in its value. [3]
Karl Marx
Hans: I need to hear your own voice, so that I can tell whether you understand it. And the Marx quote you
downloaded is not very relevant to the question at hand.
Next Message by Raynold is [777].
[714] JPeel: graded A The owner of iron cannot use his ton of iron to “buy” whatever
costs 1 ounce of gold because in order to be considered an exchange-value, the gold must
strip itself of its natural physical form. It cannot transform itself from something imaginary
into something real. A commodity may possess a certain value shape in the form of its price,
but cannot be both real iron and real gold at the same time.
Next Message by JPeel is [715].
[717] Carterryan: Ain’t Nothing but a Golddigger. Gold has a unique value compared
to other things in a bartering equation. Gold is a universally accepted form of currency,
whereas all other metals are not. Iron in this case changes due to a demand-cost basis. Let’s
say that the cost of 1 ounce of gold is equivalent to the cost 14 ounces of silver, but the
market comparison for iron to silver is 1 ton of iron for 10 ounces of silver.
All of the economic factors come into play here. There is just less demand for iron in
the comparison to silver and gold. Gold and silver have a higher demand and thus are worth
more than iron and that is why a straight trade is not reasonable
Hans: This is a completely naive explanation which does not take advantage of any scientific insights, neither
mainstream nor Marxian economics.
Next Message by Carterryan is [775].
[721] Rey: graded A The owner of the iron cannot use his 1-ton of iron to “buy” whatever
costs 1 ounce of gold because it is necessary for the iron “must be converted into money
[or the general equivalent] before it can act as exchange-value itself.” Although the 1-ton of
iron holds what Marx calls an “imagined gold shape” it is necessary for the iron owner to
actually replace his iron with gold before he is able to purchase other commodities. This is
necessary because iron has not been designated as the general equivalent. In summary iron
in its natural state has not received the social stamp of approval as the socially valid manner
of exchange and must be converted to such in order to purchase other commodities.
Hans: The gap between general equivalent and ordinary values is not as great as you make it out. Being a general
equivalent is a form of value, every commodity that contains value could conceivably be a general equivalent. The
labor which produces gold is not any better than the labor which produces iron. The only difference is that the
labor which produces the gold represents a commodity that was sold, i.e., whose labor has proven to be socially
necessary. That’s why gold has the privileged position of a general equivalent.
Next Message by Rey is [818].
[761] Samantha: Hamburgers and Iron. Marx discusses this in two different ways
throughout his text, firstly he describes how transactions occur which brings him to point
out that in capitalist societies there is a formula for goods – C-M-C. That while use-value

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 159
doesn’t changes with a commodity, the direct barter system is not allowed in the structure
of capitalists. It must go commodity – money – commodity. Hans explained the thinking of
this relationship in terms of $1 hamburgers, you could not exchange one thousand one-dollar
burgers for a car.
After a structural recognition, Marx also mentions the value of money which is the agreed
upon number by capitalists, it is not use value or labor value but something else which was
constructed by capitalists. This is why the exchange cannot happen because value is defined
by money, which is determined by the bourgeoisie.
As Dabears mentions in Sp2007, there is another main reason, which I failed to explain,
that explains this relationship. During Marx time period gold was a recognized “medium
of exchange”. This is a structure recognition that Marx gives, in a non bartering economy,
where there is a standard object of exchange whether it be the dollar or an ounce of gold,
it is recognized by everyone what the value of a dollar is, that is not the same with other
goods. Though hamburgers may be a dollar in cost, another person evaluating their value
may recognize them as higher or lower, but regardless will not accept them as an exchangeable
good.
Hans: One of the main points of Marx’s theory is that the difference between money and commodities is not as
great as is commonly assumed.
Next Message by Samantha is [762].
Question 394 is 389 in 2007fa, 410 in 2009fa, 427 in 2011fa, and 445 in 2012fa:
Question 394 Describe the contradictory and mutually exclusive relationships in the process
of exchanging commodities.
[430] Inter: The exchange process contradiction. The contradiction occurs as a result
of trying to satisfy two different goals. These goals are: 1) exchange my product for another
product that has a use-value that fulfills my needs, and 2) exchange my product for another
product(s) with equal relative value. These goals are mutually exclusive because if I satisfy
goal one, then it precludes goal two.
For example, a potter has created a bowl to exchange on the market. The potter has the
option of exchanging his bowl for 5 pounds of potatoes; the use-value of which, best satisfy
his needs. However, if the potter makes this deal, he feels as though his bowl would be
under-valued because other bowls have sold for 15 pounds of potatoes. If the potter still
makes the deal, then he will have pursued the results of goal one. Let us assume that the
potter does not make the deal for the 5 pounds of potatoes because he believes it is a rip-off.
Instead the potter approaches a weaver who offers him 10 yards of wool for his bowl. The
potter feels this is a good deal because other bowls have sold for 10 yards of wool. However,
the potter is hungry not cold and therefore the use-value that best satisfies his needs is not
being met by obtaining wool. If the potter decides to make this deal, he will be pursuing
the results of goal two. This is mutually exclusive because if the potter decides to get the
potatoes, he cannot at the same time, gain equal relative value for his bowl. If the potter
decides to gain equal relative value for his bowl, then he is unable to gain product that best
satisfies his needs.
Next Message by Inter is [517].

160 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 397 is 330 in 2003fa, 370 in 2004fa, 364 in 2005fa, 386 in 2007SP, 398 in
2008fa, 413 in 2009fa, 444 in 2010fa, and 453 in 2012fa:
Question 397 The empirical appearance of the processes of sale and purchase encourages
a naive mistake, which makes it difficult to understand the metamorphosis of the commodity.
Which mistake?
[417] Srichardson: graded A Metamorphosis of the commodity. The mistake that is
made here was a hard one for me to understand. The mistake is looking at market transaction
as one of bartering and exchange. When I think of a market transaction involving paper
money in my normal everyday thought process I see the exchange of my money for a good
that I want. For example at lunch I often feel that I exchange a five dollar bill for a sandwich.
This is an example of the “process of sale and purchase.” I fall into the mistake of looking at
is as barter. This is where the mistake is made and makes the metamorphosis of commodity
hard to understand.
When you look at this transaction as barter or trade, as I often do it is incorrect. Paper
money has no real use value, it holds value but not use value. This is the difference between
a barter transaction and a sale and purchase transaction.
Message [417] referenced by [419]. Next Message by Srichardson is [473].
[419] Hans: Are You – Gasp – Bartering Money? Srichardson [417] used to look at
sales and purchases as exchanges of money for the good. After reading Marx she knows that
this is the wrong way to look at it, because money does not really have use-value.
My answer is: relax, you are not doing anything wrong. Here are the steps of my argument,
numbered (1) to (6):
(1) As a practical act, a sale and purchase is indeed an exchange between two things: the
dollar bill and the commodity.
(2) Marx doesn’t intend to tell the practical agents how to look at their transaction. Rather
he says: “The thought processes which go into the exchange between a dollar bill and the
commodity are different from those going into an direct barter between commodities.”
(3) Srichardson did not tell us how she got the dollar bills she exchanged for the lunch
sandwich. Let’s assume she got it from the sale of labor, which is the only commodity
most of us have to sell. The barter equivalent of her purchase of a lunch sandwich would
therefore be: Srichardson negotiates with the cashier at the lunch counter and they come to
the following agreement: Srichardson does the dishes for 20 minutes and gets a tuna fish
sandwich in exchange.
(4) Here Srichardson has to decide: (a) do I really want a tuna fish sandwich or would
I prefer a Cesar salad today? (b) is 20 minutes too much for this crummy sandwich? (c)
is 20 minutes doubly too much in view that this is a booming economy and there is a labor
shortage? (d) do I feel like doing the dishes or would I prefer to mop the floor or peel potatoes
what the other restaurant needs me to do? Her thoughts are torn back and forth between the
values and the use-values of both the commodity she is giving and she is receiving.
(5) With money, the situation is much simpler. The only decision she has to make at the
lunch counter is: do I really want to spend 5 dollars for this crummy sandwich, or shall I

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 161
go to the other restaurant which has a special on Cesar Salad? The decision whether to peel
potatoes instead, or whether the labor shortage entitles her to a higher salary is not made at
the lunch counter, but this decision was made earlier when she sold her labor-power to her
employer.
(6) Marx looks at these practical activities and tries to understand the underlying social
relations which lead people to do what they are doing. He says: money streamlines things
so beautifully because the exchange for money is not really the exchange for another commodity.
Rather it is just a form change of the commodity which you already have. When
Srichardson negotiated with her employer, she turned her commodity, her labor, from its
use-value form into its value-form, and now at the lunch counter, she turns her commodity
back into use-value – with the big difference that this time it is a use-value which she needs.
To say it again: although it is a physical exchange between the dollar bill and the tuna
sandwich, the underlying thought processes are not the same as those necessary in a barter
of two commodities. Srichardson does not have to think of the use-value of the dollar bill,
because the dollar bill acts as value independent of any use-value. Srichardson is right to
say that the dollar bill holds value: it is the value form of the commodity she sold, namely of
her labor. Srichardson is also right to say that the dollar bill is lacking use-value. The dollar
bill is her labor commodity with its use-value erased, so that only the value remains, ready
to have a new use-value written into it.
In general, please note: Marx’s Capital is not a prescription how a market economy
should work or what people should do in a market economy, but an analysis of the hidden
things happening while people go about their ordinary business in a capitalist market
economy.
Message [419] referenced by [422], [727], and [2009fa:585]. Next Message by Hans is [426].
[606] Trailrunner: graded A– The mistake is looking at money as a use-value. Usevalue
comes from the labor that is sold during the production of a commodity. In return,
money is received for this labor and the use-value is erased. With the independent value
that is now held in the money, an individual can take this money and use it to purchase
another commodity. Money allows a streamlining of things because it is a much more simple
transaction than trying to think about the values and the use-values of the commodities being
given and received.
Next Message by Trailrunner is [607].
[706] Gerund: The processes of sale and purchase make it appear that prices are set by
ubiquitous market forces, supply and demand. This makes it difficult to recognize that prices
are determined by the value of the socially necessary labor. Quantity is set by demand, prices
by supply – the value of the labor needed to supply the demanded quantity.
Hans: Commodity-value is not set by the value of labor but by the labor content itself. This is not the naive mistake
Marx was talking about, but it is an intelligent answer to the question.
Next Message by Gerund is [707].
[722] Tim: graded A The mistake that is made that makes it hard to understand the metamorphosis
of a commodity during a sale and purchase is that of viewing the transaction as an
exchange or a barter process of two commodities. The fact of the matter is that when an item
is sold and purchased the items are not exchanged but they are changed as to the form that

162 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
they hold. If the transaction is viewed by looking at the form of the commodities then the
concepts will not be viewed correctly because people treat purchases and barters differently.
Hans: The difference between an exchange of two commodities and a form change of one commodity is that in the
exchange, two commodities are involved, but in a form change, only one. The money does not count as a separate
commodity, but as a different form of the commodity that is sold.
Message [722] referenced by [2009fa:1039]. Next Message by Tim is [723].
[727] Spawnblade: The naive mistake encouraged by the empirical appearance of the
processes of sale and purchase is the likening of sale and purchase to bartering. This is
because the nature of sale and purchase is seen as one exchange instead of the two separate
ones it really is. According to Hans [419], Marx does not believe we’re doing anything
‘wrong’ by this, he’s just pointing out that the thought processes that go into the two are
different.
Looking at it from the perspective of a single transaction, and viewing money as a commodity
(instead of what it really is - money) it is easy to see where the mistake is made.
Bartering is the direct exchange of one commodity/use-value for another commodity/usevalue.
When comparing this to the indirect exchange using money, it is clear that these are
two different systems in regards to their relations with the commodity.
Hans: Your sentence “the nature of sale and purchase is seen as one exchange instead of the two separate ones it
really is” does not make sense to me. If anything, sale or purchase should be considered half an exchange, not two
exchanges.
In your second paragraph you use the formulation “it is easy to see” and “it is clear” but you are not explaining
what is so easy and clear. Imagine yourself writing the book “Marx for Dummies.”
Next Message by Spawnblade is [729].
[741] Dentist: The common mistake made here is misinterpreting the sale and purchase
process as a bartering exchange. Under the bartering exchange, a use-value is traded for a
use-value, whereas the sale and purchase process takes the form of use-value in substitution
for a value.
In our system, money is not a commodity because it no longer has a use-value written
into it. Rather, it is merely the holder or representation of previously established value and is
waiting for a new use-value to be assigned. All in order to have it erased yet again and then
re-written through an infinite series of substitutions known as the sale and purchase process.
Next Message by Dentist is [766].
Question 401 is 279 in 2000fa, 318 in 2002fa, 373 in 2004fa, 390 in 2007SP, 396 in
2007fa, and 402 in 2008fa:
Question 401 Compare the sale of a commodity, i.e., its exchange for money, with the barter
of two ordinary commodities.
[422] Rmuscolino: The sale of a commodity, or its exchange for money, depends on
the commodity’s value or what we call the “price” of the commodity. Money or “price”
is a measure of value. There’s a barter of two ordinary commodities, where both should
have the same exchange-values. “A barter is a type of trade that doesn’t use any medium of
exchange, in which goods and services are exchanged for other goods and/or services. It can
be bilateral or multilateral as trade” (wikipedia.com). The disembodiment of the original
commodity form is effected by the sale of the commodity 203:2. Bartering is a balance of
economic trade. The exchange of a certain commodity for other commodities at its source

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 163
of production, money is the disembodied shape of its commodity, which is the product of a
sale.
Hans: I added the reference for the sentence with the disembodiment. That sentence implies that the sale of the
commodity is a form change of the commodity, see my [419] what this means.
Regarding your next sentence, “bartering is a balance of economic trade,” a better formulation might be that
bartering tries to balance the realization of value and selection of use-value for both traders, but these goals are
contradictory and cannot be balanced. The best way to do justice to such contradictory goals is to split the barter
into two transactions, sale and purchase, each specializing on one of the goals.
If you ask what this contradiction consists in, there is a little bit about this in [2007SP:387], but the archives contain
more detailed discussions in the earlier years, a good starting point may by my [1996sp:268] or KALISPEL’s
[1996sp:304].
Next Message by Rmuscolino is [432].
[428] Hans: A Sale or Purchase is Half a Barter. If you look at it from the form side,
as Marx wants us to do, a sale / purchase is the realization of the value of the commodity
sold for the seller, and the selection of the use-value for the money in the buyer’s hands. It
satisfies therefore one function for the seller and one function for the buyer.
A barter is a transaction which satisfies not one but two contradictory functions for each
of the traders: for each of the traders, it must at the same time be the realization of the value
of the commodity given in exchange, and the selection of the use-value into which this value
is to be reconverted. I.e., a barter has altogether four functions (two for each of the traders),
while the sale-purchase has only two function (one for the seller, one for the buyer).
Since the two functions which the barter has for each of the traders are contradictory with
each other, it is little wonder that barter transactions tend to split up into sales and purchases.
Next Message by Hans is [433].
Question 403 is 294 in 2001fa, 334 in 2003fa, 374 in 2004fa, 369 in 2005fa, and 391 in
2007SP:
Question 403 Do you purchase something with money or with the value of money?
[418] Chris: could money’s value primarily be defined by a society? From a first
glance by an unknowing outsider, it would appear that we are simply purchasing commodities.
However, there is very specific value within these commodities that we are purchasing.
Referencing Hans’ discussion of Marx and monetary expression in [415], ‘the value of
money is expressed in the things one can buy, but this is not the source of this value.” The
source of the value of commodities lies deep within their use-values, exchange-values, and
the human labor needed in the production.
We constantly see many factors that contribute to the overall value of our money. For example,
the U.S. dollar is very weak compared to the Euro at the moment. Our dollar’s value
apparently is worth less due to many macroeconomic factors. Because of this weakening,
we hear on the radio, television, etc. that we should spend our money on commodities that
we may not ‘need’ to revive a dismal economy. This leads us to what I think is the largest
scale of value, money, and the commodity. The society.
Society can dictate what money’s value should be. For example, there is status value in
BMW cars along with specific clothing brands (Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren come to mind).
Money can purchase similar items with less money but without the ‘popular’ brand names.

164 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
These commodities (cars and clothing items) all have the same use-value. Common sense
tells us to spend more on the commodity that does a better job, not spend money on the
commodity that has a ‘better’ brand name. This leads me back to my original theory that
society plays a huge dictation on money’s value.
In conclusion, I feel that we purchase items with the value of money. Both on the smallest
scale (value within commodities through use-value, exchange-value) and then again on the
large scale of society’s hierarchy of value (purchasing brand name items). People have
differing opinions on how their own money’s value should be used based on these scales
along with current income stream, needs, and wants. However, I would personally like to
see society placing less ‘value’ on commodities with specific brand names. It just does not
make sense to me.
Hans: By “value of money” you understand “what money can buy,” and you say this is, but should not be, determined
by social fads and convention. Marx’s concept of “value of money” is, under the gold standard, the labor
going into producing the gold coins. See [2005fa:1001] how this question can be answered using these concepts.
Message [418] referenced by [421] and [577]. Next Message by Chris is [473].
[421] Dyoung: Money is Both. As money is spent in the market as a purchase, the value
of money becomes known as it is exchanged for other commodities. Hans [415] said that
the value of money is expressed in the things that one can buy, but this is not the source of
the value. I would agree with Chris [418] in that the source of value of a commodity does lie
with in its use-value, exchange value and the human labor needed to produce the commodity.
It seems to me that the only use-value of money is that you can exchange it for things. It is
the only item I can think of that can be both a use-value and an exchange value to a buyer
and a seller. So unlike Chris I think that you purchase something with money and with the
value of money.
Hans: If I understand you right, you say: since money can buy everything, it is the only commodity which has
use-value for everyone, And because it has this use-value, it is accepted by everyone in exchange, i.e., it can buy
everything. This sounds circular to me: money can buy everything because it can buy everything.
Next Message by Dyoung is [520].
[423] JPeel: graded D “Money is any token or other object that functions as a medium
of exchange that is socially and legally accepted in payment for goods and services and
in settlement of debts” (Wikipedia.com). You purchase something with both money and
with the value of money. Since dollar bills are which symbolize the value of money we
incorporate both when purchasing an item or service. We have to consider the fact that we
use paper as our form of money or “value.” So when we buy something we use both forms.
The value of money is based on the exchange value and use value. Actual money, such as a
paper dollar bill, is a form of concrete value. While the value of money is an internal value
and is expressed through the use value. We will only purchase something if it has value to
our personal being, but, that item or commodity must be purchased with the actual paper bill
of money. In this case, we are using both money, and the value of money.
Hans: The Wikipedia definition of money is not the same as Marx’s definition. Marx lived under the gold standard.
Money was not just a symbol of value, but it had value, it either was gold coin or it gave the holder a claim on gold.
What you say about value, internal value, value to our personal being, is also in a different framework than Marx’s.
Message [423] referenced by [454]. Next Message by JPeel is [478].
[424] FacistFrank: Money is Pure Glowing Value. The way I took it from the readings
was that you purchase things with the value (measured in time, skill, and exertion) of
your labor, and that value is represented in the commodity you produce, which is in turn

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 165
represented in the money you get for the labor you do and commodity you make. Money
is a representation of pure liquid value (labor) and you go around with your pure glowing
value (money) and say “I would like to buy that other glowing value” (the value in a T-shirt).
I’m thinking of it like the briefcase in pulp fiction, it just helps me to relate to it better, lol.
Money’s use value is that it represents pure value, but only because society says so, this is a
social construct. Of course I would like to be corrected if I am wrong, rather be wrong today
and right for the rest of my life, than wrong for the rest of my life. Also in our capitalist
society, some steal this worth from others and make the rest of society think that it is actually
theirs when it belongs to someone else.
Hans: This are good formulations which are right on target, but it would be interesting to say something about how
money became the representation of “pure glowing value.”
Message [424] referenced by [577]. Next Message by FacistFrank is [573].
[577] CousinIt: graded A the value of money. It seems that this question has proved to
be a difficult one for us to get our heads around, myself included. In going back over the
archives of the previous answers to this question, I am going to attempt my own interpretation.
The answers from this semester seem to be attempting an understanding, dancing
around the concept, some closer to, others farther from Marx’s interpretation/meaning.
In the archives, Hans states repeatedly that it is the ‘form of value of money’ that enables
the purchase. Even this was difficult to get my head around. After pondering this, subsequent
to going over the answers and Hans’ responses in the archives, I think that I have come up
with a way to say this that makes it understandable to me, though it may or may not be
helpful to others.
Whether or not money as paper or money as gold has any value does not really matter
because it is not the value of money that enables the purchase of commodities. Rather, it is
the implication of social agreement (building on Chris’ [418]) that money represents, as the
commodity socially accepted as the general or universal equivalent and as an indicator of
the validated and affirmed socially necessary labor in the production of commodities.
Money (as the representation of the relative value of all other commodities through its
social stamp of approval of the labor-created form of value of the commodity form metamorpized
into the general equivalent form) enables the sale and purchase of all other commodities
by way of its ‘form of value’ as the general equivalent (FacistFrank’s [424] “pure
glowing value”), and not by way of the value of the (gold or paper) money in itself.
I hope this helps. I apologize if I have merely furthered the confusion.
Message [577] referenced by [580] and [756]. Next Message by CousinIt is [614].
[580] Hans: Private Labor Needs a Social Stamp of Approval. I fully agree with
CousinIt’s [577] formulation
Money enables the sale and purchase of all other commodities by way of
its ‘form of value’ as the general equivalent and not by way of the value of
the money itself.
Let’s first try to understand it under the gold standard, when money is gold, and at the end
I will give my take about how this extends to today’s conditions. Under the gold standard, it
is not the value of the gold coin which enables the purchase, because if you have this value

166 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
in a different use-value, say in the form of a new pair of shoes, then you could not make the
purchase by handing over the shoes.
To anyone living in capitalism it is completely obvious that we can’t just use a random
commodity which we happen to have, say a pair of shoes, and expect others to accept it as
money. Nevertheless it is useful here to ask: why can’t we do this? If we have produced the
shoes, why doesn’t the labor put into these shoes give us access to the other commodity we
would like to buy which contains just as much labor?
Answer: because we first need proof that the labor put into the shoes is in fact socially
necessary, that it fits into the social division of labor. This proof is handed to us when we sell
the shoes: the money we obtain for the shoes is proof that our labor was socially necessary.
After getting this social stamp of approval we are now able to transfer, by our own choices
of what we want to buy, this social approval to the seller of the commodity we ourselves are
using.
The value incorporated in money therefore differs from the value incorporated in other
commodities by the fact that it bears the stamp of social approval. That is its specific form
of value.
The transfer of the social stamp of approval from one buyer to the next seems fair and
democratic, but it has one important unfair implication which is not quite obvious: in a
growing economy, the money received by the sale of the commodities produced yesterday
is not enough to validate all commodities produced today, because today more commodities
are produced than yesterday. Therefore in a growing economy, every day some new money is
needed. Under the gold standard, this was not yet terribly unfair, because one had to perform
labor to get this additional gold. The only unfair advantage for the gold producer was that
he did not have to go through the trouble of first getting the social stamp of approval for his
labor; gold-producing labor was automatically approved by society. It was, as Marx said in
one of the three peculiarities of the equivalent form, private labor which directly counted as
its opposite, as social labor.
The rest of this message is my own attempt to extend Marx’s theory to the present time:
Today, value has been stripped out of money, but the form of value is artificially maintained.
Money is no longer gold but a worthless piece of paper whose exchange-value is
maintained by the Fed’s monetary policy and the worldwide military presence of the USA.
As a consequence, this unfair advantage has become an “exorbitant privilege” (this formulation
is attributed to Charles de Gaulle): the United States can basically print money and buy
up the world’s resources with this newly printed money. The only price which it has to pay
for this privilege is that it has to maintain the value of the dollar at a stable level.
With the Iraq war and a monetary policy that encouraged stock market bubbles and housing
bubbles, and now the bailouts connected with the bursting of the housing bubble, however,
the Fed has left the terrain of sound monetary policy and is engaging in highly inflationary
policy. It will be interesting to see how the world reacts to the US no longer holding up
its part of an already highly skewed bargain, but the US still holding undiminished military
power towering over anybody else.
Message [580] referenced by [591] and [756]. Next Message by Hans is [584].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 167
Exam Question 411 is 376 in 2005fa, 398 in 2007SP, 412 in 2008fa, 427 in 2009fa, 462
in 2010fa, 459 in 2011fa, and 480 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 411 How does Marx define a crisis?
[683] Hans: We are in a Crisis Situation. All test answers gave examples of crises but
didn’t define what a crisis is. Marx’s definition of a crisis is quite interesting (that’s why I
made this an exam question). Please read my [2005fa:957] first, and then my [2007SP:611]
and [2007SP:997]. I think you will get something out of it. Here I’ll type in the answer one
of you gave in the exam, because I enjoyed it. This person wrote:
In truth, I cannot speak intelligently about this because I don’t remember reading it at all,
so I will do my best to guess. If it’s wrong in the first few sentences, stop reading because it
won’t get better.
During this whole class I believe I’ve learned we’re in a crisis situation according to
Marx. We, as laborers, are constantly working harder in hopes of a better, brighter future but
are doing nothing but working to destroy. Destroying not only ourselves individually, but
society as a whole and the environment. The crisis comes as there is very little we can do
about it and we’re the ones that walked ourselves, almost blindly, down this path. The only
hope is that enough people recognize this plight and organize to react. Unfortunately, this
must take place at all levels of functioning society but it may be possible to accomplish and
seems to be becoming more reality with the pending environmental crisis. To me, this is a
Marxian crisis.
Next Message by Hans is [743].
Question 419 is 402 in 2004fa, 410 in 2007SP, 413 in 2007fa, 421 in 2008fa, 437 in
2009fa, 473 in 2010fa, 475 in 2011fa, and 496 in 2012fa:
Question 419 Explain the individual motivation for hoarding money. Do these hoards have
a function for the economy as a whole or only for the individual?
[431] Ryoung: Does Hoarding Prevent Money From Serving its Purpose? Marx
227:3/o explains that hoarding exists because of two reasons: necessity, and passionate desire
to save money. Nowadays I believe that hoarding is less likely as it seems that everybody
is trying to keep up with the “Jones’.” This trend has enticed many people to continue to go
into debt without having paid off their previous debts. Many people find themselves feeling
that they are too far in debt to ever get themselves out, which I believe leads them to go
further into debt.
Although many people are on the opposite end of the spectrum from hoarding I do believe
that there are still those that are hoarders of money. I also tend to agree with Marx, and I
believe that these people choose to stop the transition or the circulating of money because
they either have the necessity to save or are comforted by having their share of liquid money.
There are many types of people that I believe hoard money but I tend to believe that the
majority of these people are of the “old school” train of thought that have been brought up
taught not to go into debt.
These hoards of money only serve an immediate purpose for the individuals that hoard,
and do not have a function or immediate impact on the economy. Marx stated that the

168 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
hoarding of money stops the money itself from reaching its purpose which it was invented
for. Money was meant to transition from coin to money and so on. Which means that when
a commodity was sold the seller of that commodity was then, hypothetically, supposed to
turn around with the proceeds from his sold commodity and was to spend it on another
commodity that he/she needed at that moment. This pattern was to continue and was to
create economic wealth when executed. This pattern or transition is halted when one chooses
to hold its proceeds and not to continue to circulate it through the market place. Therefore
this is why I believe that hoarding does not have a function in the economy. It is not able to
serve its purpose.
Hans: I assume your formulation “money was meant to transition from coin to money and so on” is based on
Marx’s sentence
At one time money must be attracted as coin, at another time coin must be repelled as money.
in 231:3/o. “Coin” means here money actively mediating a circulation act, and “money” is money as hoard riding
out the lumps in circulation, see my [435].
Jeremy: Hoarding is a function of money and this function was realized by Marx. To truly see this, one must look
at various opportunities to hoard money. Throughout all times in history when money has been available, there
have always been those who will try to hold onto it. This accumulated wealth creates a sense of security as well as
a sense of power. This too was also known by Marx.
Since the inception of banking, hoarders have found their “golden ticket” so to speak. When a person places
$50,000 in the bank in a savings account to secure their amassed wealth, that money is never taken out of the
economy. It is used to lend money to others. Because of this opportunity cost, the account holder profits, the banker
profits, and the loan holder helps to circulate the money even more.
The popular trend these days is to hoard your wages today to pay for tomorrow. This is happening in the form
of 401(K)’s, stocks, bonds, and hundreds of other engines for building up a stockpile. While the hoarder does not
enjoy their wealth immediately, they or their heirs will eventually reap the rewards. In this form, hoarding is akin
to delayed gratification.
In every case, hoarding continues to contribute money serving its purpose. Even when you look at true hoarding,
which is rarely, if ever practiced. When someone takes that same $50,000 and removes it from the market place
altogether, that lessening of money available increases the value of all other money still in circulation. By doing
this, that removed money has directly impacted every aspect that gives money its value. Hoarding, in no way
prevents money from serving its purpose.
Hans: Jeremy, you claim that money is a veil, it cannot affect the real economy, and you are using the quantity
theory of money to back this up. Just for clarification: Marx did not think money is a veil, and Marx’s theory of
money is not the quantity theory of money.
Jeremy: Hans, could you please expound on your statement that I used money as a veil? I’m also failing to see
where I implied that money cannot affect the real economy.
Hans: Both terms refer to economic models in which the real economy is governed by real factors (endowments,
utilities, production function), and the money supply only determines the price level. If you identify savings with
“deferred gratification” then you only look at the real effects with money as “veil,” and your thesis that hoarding
lowers the price level is also an element of these theories.
Message [431] referenced by [435] and [437]. Next Message by Ryoung is [524].
[435] Hans: No Flow of Money Without Pauses. Ryoung [431] has an undialectical
understanding of the flow of money. Why do I say this? The following passage overlooks
one of the Hegelian commonplaces, that everything contains its opposite:
When a commodity was sold the seller of that commodity was then, hypothetically,
supposed to turn around with the proceeds from his sold commodity
and was to spend it on another commodity that he/she needed at
that moment.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 169
Such an idealized pure flow of money does not exist. Money cannot go from one transaction
to the next without a series of smaller or longer pauses, where it waits for the next
transaction to happen. These pauses are inevitable because economic transactions are inherently
lumpy. Marx describes this in 231:3/o.
Under a modern fractional reserve system, the banking system accommodates the fluctuating
demands for money by constantly creating and destroying money. At Marx’s times,
the money that was momentarily not needed for circulation did not return to the banking
system but was kept by private individuals as gold hoards. The individual hoards of money
had therefore a clear beneficial economic side effect. Another beneficial use for gold hoards
was reserves for international transactions.
The economic functions of modern consumer debt. Times have changed. Nowadays,
one of the biggest contradictions of capitalism is overproduction. So much can be produced
and so little is paid as wages to the producers that not enough can be sold. One way out of
this is that consumers go into debt. This has three benefits for the capitalists:
(1) They can continue selling their stuff without raising wages.
(2) Debt service payments are an easy additional source of profits.
(2) When the rising debt levels get to the point where they can no longer be repaid,
then the indebted consumer is an easy scapegoat, shielding the system from criticism which
requires this indebtedness for its functioning.
While at Marx’s times, hoards had an economic function, apart from the individual motivations
of the hoarders, nowadays consumer indebtedness has an economic function, which
is again not intended by the individuals going into debt.
Message [435] referenced by [431], [437], [445], and [2012fa:857]. Next Message by Hans is [445].
[437] Spawnblade: Dragons hoard gold, people hoard debt. Ryoung [431] explained
‘why’ people were inclined to hoard money, however I feel the entire question is not appropriate
for the modern age. As Hans [435] explained, the modern fractional reserve system
means that only 10% of the money people hoard is actually hoarded, while the other 90%
of it is released as investment into various places in the economy. This prevents 90% of the
usual stagnation occurring from physical hoarding of money, while allowing people to retain
a theoretical 90% of the liquidity of their money. It’s clear that the mentioned ‘idealized pure
flow of money’ does not, and cannot exist. However the small pause of having to travel to a
bank and actually withdraw money, or the use of a credit card makes these pauses diminish.
Hans indicated that in Marx’s time gold was hoarded when it was not needed in circulation.
Now at this point I must play the devil’s/capitalist’s advocate (depending on your point
of view in this class). So to continue, I’d like to ask: Who is to say that the money could not
be used in circulation? Who’s to say it wouldn’t have stimulated the economy?
As far as I can tell, there is no way to actually determine who may or may not be able to
use the money. Using banks as an example, they constantly are approving loans or investing
in startup companies. This does in fact empower the economy, but it also stimulates overproduction.
And frankly, without the overproduction America participated in in the past, this
country would not have as high of living standards as it does. I’m not saying overproduction
is good, because I personally wouldn’t have a problem with going back in time and living

170 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
a simple life off the land. Life would have a lot less stress, though at the same time people
would be vulnerable to nature and its random behaviors.
In continuation of the problem of overproduction, I’d like to contrast it with Hans’s comments
on debt. Debt in the economy is not a direct result of the capitalist system of overproduction.
It indicates an unreasonable bias against capitalism to say it is. Personal debt is
instead a direct result of a consumer not being able to live within their means. The average
income in America is easily enough for a single person to live comfortably on. I know I
could live very comfortably off of $2000 a month. The problem is when one person is trying
to support a family of 4 on a salary of $20-30,000. For the next and (in my opinion) most
prevalent reason of debt, I’d like to give an example:
The two sides of my family are polar opposites. My mother’s side is very frugal, hardworking,
clean, and loyal. My father’s side is carefree, lazy, dirty, and they know no ethical
boundaries. Now in reference to actual income, my mother’s side has had layoffs, lost money
in real estate scams, and several other major setbacks. Whereas my father’s side has come
out victorious in a multitude of lawsuits for car crashes, over the counter drugs, etc. Despite
this, my father’s side has to ask money of my father constantly in order to pay their bills or
buy christmas gifts for their kids. This is because they spend it all going on frivolous cruises
or purchasing new cars, instead of investing/saving for times of need. It is for this reason
they’ve accrued massive debts. If it were the economy that pushed people into debt, than my
mother’s side would have been a victim as well judging by actual occurrences of wage loss.
Now if Hans were to say that the abundance of credit spurs some people’s incapacity to
control their spending, I would agree with this. It’s similar to gambling in that some people
do not fall to the addiction and others do. Overproduction alone at this point basically means
we could stop producing everything except the necessities and we’d have more goods than
we would know what to do with. Once more, I agree that overproduction is bad, but is
definitely tied to the capitalist system as it stands. However I do not believe that there is
anything that actually relates it to debt. The economic function it has is purely companies
abusing certain debtors lack of willpower in balancing their budget and purchasing only
what they deem most necessary to them. It’s the frivolous spenders that are in fact ushering
overproduction.
Message [437] referenced by [445]. Next Message by Spawnblade is [444].
[445] Hans: Overproduction and Sustainability. Volume 3 of Capital contains the
famous passage:
The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted
consumption of the masses as opposed to the drive of capitalist
production to develop the productive forces as though only the absolute
consuming power of society constituted their limit.
This is an issue deeply embedded in the structure of capitalist production. According to
Marxian economics, capitalist profits come from value which the workers produce in excess
of their wages. Therefore the capitalists cannot sell their product back to their laborers but
must find other outlets for it. It is possible to find those other outlets; in volume 2 of Capital,
Marx builds a rudimentary input-output model which shows how this extra product can flow

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 171
into investment and capitalist consumption. But this is a balancing act, and it is easy to end
up in a situation where either too much is produced for the limited purchasing power of the
majority of the people, or for the needs of the capitalists to make profits. These situations
are called “overproduction crises.”
Even before it erupts into a crisis, overproduction is present in capitalism: it manifests
itself in planned obsolescence, where products are built in such a shoddy way that they break
down quickly, in product incompatibilities, in lots of resources being spent on advertising or
on the military, and in many other ways.
In [435], I used the word “overproduction” without defining it. Lacking a definition,
Spawnblade [437] misunderstood me in an interesting way. He thought “overproduction”
was production in excess of the survival needs of humans, and he thought I was advocating
a lifestyle that was environmentally sustainable but not much fun.
These are relevant issues for the 21st century. How can a system which aggressively pursues
waste and overproduction in the quest for profits produce sustainably for the environment?
Sustainability and environmental justice are diametrically opposed to the principles
of capitalism, which is based on exploitation (i.e., injustice) mitigated by growth and the
plunder of the natural environment (i.e., unsustainability).
I believe a sustainable lifestyle can easily be more fun than a capitalist lifestyle. It will
involve much more free time, a healthcare system which allows people to do the work they
have a passion for instead of working an alienated job for a big corporation, and more culture
and art. Here is an example of what I am thinking of: Some people associated with the
Leonardo Center have organized a “sustainable fashion show” under the motto “Reincarnate
the out-of-date!”, which will take place in the atrium of South Towne Mall tomorrow, Friday
Feb 29, 6 - 9 pm. Their web site is
http://www.seeingleonardo.blogspot.com/
I expect that this is only the beginning of a trend. Cultural events which demonstrate how
much fun a sustainable lifestyle can be will become much more commonplace in the future.
Next Message by Hans is [451].
Question 424 is 284 in 1999SP, 320 in 2001fa, 349 in 2002fa, 364 in 2003fa, 426 in
2008fa, and 482 in 2011fa:
Question 424 What is the relation between Marx’s theory of a miser and Keynes’s “paradox
of thrift”?
[440] Samantha: Saving money is not a good thing. Keynes Paradox of Thrift, sometimes
called the Paradox of savings, is basically that savings is good for an individual but
bad for the economy in general, in other words if people save they are hurting the economy
though helping themselves (in the short run). Consumption is what drives the economy, from
Keynes effective demand, which is not possible when individuals are hoarding money. The
monetary production economy, which Keynes believes we are in, instead of a barter economy,
relies on demand side economics to fuel the economy, as long as people are buying
things wages will continue to increase and unemployment decrease.

172 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Marx’s theory of a Miser is of someone who hoards money, they buy little and produce
much. So if classical theory is to be believed this is supply-side economics, which should
fuel the economy. However, this is untrue, if everyone in society acts like the miser and puts
gold away as though it “were buried in a mountain” then the economy could not function.
Marx’s theory of the miser is very near the same as Keynes’s Paradox, both recognize that
an individual act of keeping money instead of spending or using it causes other problems
for the society. As Colletchen points out in [2003fa:307], society generally looks at thrift
as a good thing. Both Keynes and Marx argue that this is not the case, though for different
reasons. Marx believes that the miser is trapped in the market economy and as he tries to
reach his goal of becoming wealthy and accumulate he gets caught in this contradiction of
society, where his individual success and subsequent hoarding of money injures the rest of
society. Keynes doesn’t believe this to be part of the system at all, he instead believes that
the ‘animal spirits’ of people including their greed are not necessarily bad but could be bad
if everyone saved money to such a large extent as to be considered hoarding, he believes that
some greed or want to accumulate is good, as it inspires individuals to take risks.
Hans: Marx’s theory of the miser does not have a macroeconomic component. Marx is not asking “who is going
to buy the things the miser is producing” or “is the miser hurting others by reducing aggregate demand?” The miser
is an example of individual behavior getting caught in the structural contradictions of a market economy. It shows
the spell which these social relations have on people.
Next Message by Samantha is [582].
Question 427 is 280 in 1997sp, 269 in 1997ut, 276 in 1998WI, 287 in 1999SP, 323 in
2001fa, 352 in 2002fa, 367 in 2003fa, 409 in 2004fa, 417 in 2007SP, and 420 in 2007fa:
Question 427 Explain how, by the circumstances of commodity circulation, buyers and
sellers may develop into debtors and creditors, and give examples.
[443] Matt: Buyers and sellers. Buyers and sellers become debtors and creditors when
a commodity exchanges hands before payment through money has taken place. But before
this can happen a “Trust relationship” must be in place according to Marx. This relationship
of trust is developed over time as the buyer and seller may have a history with each other. A
good example would be the purchasing of house. Since the buyer does not have the cash to
pay for the commodity upfront, Marx says he has to borrow money for a “defined period” of
30 years until the debt has been paid in full. The buyer will then go to the mortgage lender
and request a lump sum be lent to him so he can purchase the home from the seller. Since the
lender does not know the buyer personally they will check the history of payments made to
other lenders (bank loans, credit cards) to make sure there can be a trustworthy relationship.
Once the buyer is found to be trustworthy, the money will be lent to the buyer for a fee
(interest payment). This process is where the buyer becomes a debtor to the mortgage lender.
The seller will then receive full payments for the sale of his house. This transaction allows
the buyer to live in the house without actually owning it. The annotations say, “only after
the lease has expired has the buyer actually received the use-value of the commodity.
Hans: The credit which the paper boy (and the newspaper company) gives you when he delivers newspapers before
collecting the bill is more typical for this kind of credit springing from circulation than home mortgages.
Next Message by Matt is [603].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 173
Question 433 is 283 in 1998WI, 294 in 1999SP, 312 in 2000fa, 360 in 2002fa, 375 in
2003fa, 417 in 2004fa, 426 in 2007fa, and 488 in 2010fa:
Question 433 Why is means of payment, and not means of purchase, the predominant function
of international money?
[432] Rmuscolino: Means of payment, and not means of purchase, serve as the predominant
function of international money. Marx 231:3/o states that gold hoards created by
private citizens allows the quantity of the circulating medium of payments to “ebb and flow”
or simply go in and out, which also served as international payments. Every nation should
have a reserve fund for this circulation in the world market. The function of money plays
an important role in the function of hoards. This function becomes the medium of payment,
which then circulates internally out of its function as international money or “world money.”
Hans: In the quoted passage, Marx does not speak of means of payment specifically but of all money in circulation.
“Means of payment” is a specific form of circulation discussed in the assigned readings. One cannot understand
this question, let alone answer it correctly, if one don’t know what means of payment is.
Next Message by Rmuscolino is [477].
[436] Alex: content B+ form 95% The international processes of money are accounted
for by Marx in this section and others. It is international because it represents more than
money but human capital, and value. This is extremely important in understanding the universal
understood qualities of money. Though the more refined qualities of money have been
refined since Marx’s work, his understanding is rudimentary yet specific to the differences
in international and domestic money.
However, again Marx separates the process of money as it flows into the international
economy. All this relates back to Say’s law and the necessary separations in process. In
fact it is not all one process, but several processes. I believe a more accurate examination of
Say’s law is in order.
Marx goes into detail about why Say’s law is not accurate. Marx’s denunciation of the
logic is based on the division of the purchaser and the seller. The money exchanged and
given to the seller does not guarantee the reuse of the funds because the seller becomes a
purchaser in a different act than the original transaction. But the original transaction itself is
more ambigous than what Say allows. The reality is that the purchaser and seller are not so
easily defined. In fact to the contrary, the purchaser could be the seller and vice-versa. It is
not so easily explained as Say purports.
The commodity is an important part of the transaction. The value assessed by Say is not
necessarily accurate, and if nothing else is over-simplified. The transaction is not so easily
ended as well. Is the purchaser really the final consumer of the product, or will it be resold.
When does the commodity come out of the cycle of revenue and commodities. The final
consumer is an important aspect of the initial transaction. The commodity also contains
something of its opposite, during the transaction the commodity is awarded some piece of
its opposite. Thus there is no need to use the money immediately because the same money
can be used later on.
This is seemingly contrary to Keynes and the multiplier effect. Though when a more
thorough examination is given to synthesizing these theories there is some room for compliance.
However, this theory brings into question the validity of President Bush’s stimulus

174 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
package. Will consumers be inspired to shop, or will they hold their money knowing that
they can purchase later, and that now is a time to save. The stimulus is further impacted by
the fact that employment and income are not the cause of the recession, housing is. I don’t
know how many will use their rebates to purchase new houses.
After this examination it is important to understand the human perspective in all this.
The purchase is not important, but what is the actual cost of production. The international
economy disadvantages countries and entices them to devalue human life for the “payment”
of goods.
Hans: This contribution brims with interesting ideas, similar to [141] and other earlier contributions. But in many
places your argument is too terse, often you are not really making an argument but just hinting at it. And you seem
infected by Rmuscolino’s wrong interpretation of the word “means of payment.”
Next Message by Alex is [453].
[439] Scott: means of payment. The means of payment, and not means of purchase is
the predominant function of international money because it is more efficient and less risky to
conduct international transactions this way. It is impossible to do a transaction of money and
goods at the same time because of the location barrier between buyer and seller. Because of
this you have to choose, either the money needs to be sent first or the goods. If the buyer
sends the money overseas there is a great possibility that he will never see the goods. The
logical solution to this is to send the goods first, so that the buyer has assurance that the
goods exists. After which the goods can be given to the buyer after he gives the money to
the seller.
Hans: Finally an answer which knows what a means of payment is. I also like your simple and logical approach.
Message [439] referenced by [459]. Next Message by Scott is [455].
[459] Tim: I have to agree with the answer by Scott [439] that there must be an assurance
that the goods have been sent in order for the payment to be made. Both must operate on
faith that the other will be honest in their dealings. It only makes sense to operate this way
because there are so many ways that the sender can cheat the buyer out of his money if the
payment is made before the goods are shipped. Thus, means of payment and not means of
purchase is predominant.
Hans: I am a little puzzled about your statement “both must operate on faith that the other will be honest in their
dealings” when everything else you say indicates that one can not rely on the honesty of the transaction partners
but that procedures must be put in place which make cheating as difficult as possible.
I don’t think you said anything Scott didn’t already know. If you wanted to give feedback to Scott which is
more than psychologically helpful you could have given more details about the mechanisms of the transactions as
I tried in [475].
Next Message by Tim is [553].
[475] Hans: technicalities of international trade. Example: It is July 1st 1785. The
telegraph has not yet been invented, and letters within Europe take 1-2 weeks for delivery.
Merchant M in Bordeaux (France) wants to buy grain from merchant Y in Danzig (Prussia).
M has an account with bank A in Amsterdam (Holland), and Y has an account with bank B
in Amsterdam. Here is the sequence of events:
Merchant M has an agent merchant X in Danzig, who is going to purchase and ship the
grain. M sends X the instructions asking him to buy 1000 bushels of rye from merchant
Y, to be shipped to Bordeaux. Along with these instructions he sends a so-called “draft”
(more technically called “acceptance bill,” a more modern form of a “bill of exchange”).

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 175
This “draft” is a letter in which merchant M orders his Amsterdam bank A to pay 500 florins
on October 1st to bank B in Amsterdam. Merchant M also sends a copy of this draft to bank
A in Amsterdam.
On July 15, merchant X gets this letter, and on July 25, he takes delivery of the rye from
Merchant Y and at this time gives merchant Y the draft. Merchant X loads the rye on one
of his ships and sends it on the way to Bordeaux. Merchant Y sends the draft to bank B in
Amsterdam.
An August 10, bank B receives the draft in the mail and goes to bank A and shows them
the draft. Bank A has already received a copy of this draft directly from M and therefore
knows it is legitimate, and M has enough money on deposit with bank A to pay for the draft.
The draft is not yet due, but bank A writes “I accept” on the back of the draft.
On October 1st, bank B gives the draft to bank A and gets 500 florins in return. Bank B
credits this payment to merchant Y’s account, and bank A debits the payment, with fees and
interest, from merchant X’s account.
In part I have this from
http://eh.net/coursesyllabi/syllabi/munro/BILLEXCH.htm
and in part I am just making it up to fill in the missing information. This web site does
not tell me what happens if something goes wrong. Assume bank A does not accept the
bill, because merchant M does not have enough money or credit with bank A. I assume then
merchant X is responsible for paying Y, and merchant X, who is in possession of the rye in
transit, will not deliver the rye to merchant M but try to sell it elsewhere in order to get at
least partial reimbursement for the money he has to pay to Y. And this is, of course, the end
of the relationship where X acts as agent for M. I am not sure about the precise mechanisms,
but I am sure that such built-in safeguards exist so that breach of contract is more costly for
the transactors than adhering to the contract.
If anyone reading this has more info, or can point me to a book which explains things
better than the above web site, please let me know.
Message [475] referenced by [459]. Next Message by Hans is [480].
Question 438 is 423 in 2004fa, 456 in 2009fa, and 493 in 2010fa:
Question 438 Marx makes three statements about money engaged in M −C − M: (1) this
money transforms itself into capital, (2) this money becomes capital, and (3) according to
its determination, this money already is capital. What is the difference between these three
statements? Why does Marx not say that this money is capital?
[454] Carterryan: The M-C-M Process: The way to make a profit. Money in its
original form is capital in the fact that it is going to be used through the M-C-M process to
purchase commodities and then transformed from that back into more capital. When you
break down the M-C-M formula you get two separate phases but they are still a part of each
other. The first part of the formula, M-C, is taking the capital that is used in the beginning
of the whole process to purchase the commodities for the investment return.

176 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Money in the first phase (M-C) is still in a monetary form even after it is turned into
commodities. This is because the commodities are just a means to an end and are just being
used to create more capital for the initial purchaser of the goods.
The definition of the term “money” is: any token or other object that functions as a
medium of exchange that is socially and legally accepted in payment for goods and services.
. . . . . . money also serves as a standard of value for measuring the relative worth of
different goods and services and as a store of value. So the commodities can still be referred
to as money.
The second phase of the cycle (C-M) is where the commodities are then exchanged for
more capital. For instance if you bought a barrel of oil for $100 and then turned around and
sold it to Exxon for $120, you just made a $20 profit that can be returned in the M-C-M
process and be able to use your capital gained on future investments.
Marx denied calling this money as capital because if you say bought the same barrel for
a $100 and then the demand or market for oil dropped you would not have made any profit
and so you would have no capital from the M-C-M process.
Hans: This is a difficult question about the subtleties of Marx’s methodology. It can certainly not be resolved by
looking up the Wikipedia definition of money, which comes from a completely different theoretical framework. I
said that already in my remarks to [423].
Your past submissions have shown little appreciation of the differences between Marx’s theory and mainstream
economics. I urge you to read up on this. Perhaps it would be a good idea if you were to check out Duncan
Foley’s Understanding Capital or some other introduction into Marx’s theory from the library (Foley is on reserve).
Listening to the recordings of my class lectures might help too.
Next Message by Carterryan is [716].
Question 439 is 494 in 2010fa and 524 in 2012fa:
Question 439 At the beginning of 248:2 Marx says that M −C − M in which the second
M is equal to the first is “absurd” and “devoid of content.” Nevertheless, later in the same
paragraph he says that the quantitative differences should be disregarded. Why does he insist
on investigating a possibility which he just called “absurd” and which never happens?
[444] Spawnblade: The absurdity of intended loss. When money is exchanged for
commodity with the sole intent of exchanging that commodity back into money, it is clear
that it is absurd to assume that the second M is less than the first. Marx understands this, yet
he does not say that the exchange will not happen, he simply says that “if the intention were
to exchange to equal sums of money...” indicating that it was not as absurd if the original
intention had been to exchange the commodity for a higher sum of money and therefore
remove the risks of transaction.
There are two examples which I feel are appropriate for the topic: The first is the depreciation
of a car. Most people purchase cars with the intent to sell them in the future, however
their intent is not to make money off of them, but to get a certain use out of them and then
sell the remains in a few years. It does not follow the specific guidelines of only purchasing
a commodity with the intent to sell, but it is a main intent. In fact, many people buy cars that
are known to have higher resale values (such as Hondas).

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 177
The other example is a stock. I feel stocks are a good modern example because they are
a share in a company and should fit the definition of a commodity due to the percentage of
ownership in capital that they represent. And due to the global economy it is rare to have
merchants participating in traveling trade, if not unheard of. When traders purchase stocks
they purchase them with the intent to make money on an increase in the company’s profits
and a rise in their share’s value. This does not always happen, however, since the monetary
value of stocks are not always predictable. For this reason a person may deem it necessary
to cut their losses by selling at an equal or lesser value than that which they first bought
it. It was not their intent, but it was something they had to consider when making a risky
purchase.
I believe it is for this reason that Marx decides to investigate this ‘absurd’ possibility, and
not for the reason that it “never happens.” I also believe that it is wise to disregard quantitative
differences, since in a generalized form it is impossible to predict the quantitative differences
due to the nature of trade and the people that participate. However, if quantitative differences
were thrown out altogether, it would be impossible to judge M-C-M and really analyze the
‘how’ and ‘why’ of it. So I believe it should be based on a case by case basis depending on
what is actually being analyzed about it.
Message [444] referenced by [450], [469], and [2010fa:599]. Next Message by Spawnblade is [538].
[450] Trailrunner: graded A– Money for the sake of Money. Spawnblade [444] speaks
of depreciation and the unpredictability of the eventual profits from the sale of an item (or
in the case of his example, stocks) as the reason why M=M is absurd. I would have an
interest in looking at the obsession that a capitalist has with money. If a capitalist is all about
accumulating money, then wouldn’t there be pleasure in the exchange of money regardless
of whether profits were being made with each exchange or not?
The focus to me seems to be more about exchanging money for money than only looking
at the profits. I do realize that ultimately, if profits are not being made, the accumulation of
money will never happen, but I also believe that people can some times get caught up in just
“playing” with money. Isn’t that what sometimes drives people to gamble? Everyone know
that the “house” always wins when you are at a casino, but there is an allure to the feeling
of money in your hands....and watching it possibly grow. As is the case of the casinos never
losing in the long run, there are times when they do pay out tremendous amounts of money.
A capitalist, in exchanging money for money may not always walk away with a profit, but
will very likely eventually be like the casino, and win the profits in the long run.
I would also look at the social context in which those that carry around money find themselves.
So often, people that are consumed with the desire to have more money, think that
having it somehow makes them superior and more worthy of respect. I had a friend at one
point in time that always carried at least $1000 cash in his pocket. When it came time to
pay for dinner (if we were out with a group), he would pull out the wad of money and finger
through it, counting it, as if he thought it would impress those around him. The reality was
that people didn’t really care to see it, nor did it make them think more highly of him. Does
a capitalist get caught up in this “I’m better than you because I deal in money” type of idea?
And does this apply to the absurdity of the second M equaling the first M?

178 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Yes, the capitalist ultimately cares about accruing more and more money, but I believe it
also has to do with feeling superior. I believe that there is an understanding that if a person
keeps working at trading money for money, they will eventually come out ahead - even if
some of the transactions at times seem absurd.
Message [450] referenced by [469]. Next Message by Trailrunner is [473].
[469] Hans: First quality, then quantity. Marx generally likes to look at quality first,
i.e., first abstract from quantity, and only later take in the quantitative dimension, after he
has understood the quality. This is an unfamiliar procedure since modern science tries to
quantify everything and pays little attention to quality. I think Marx has a point here because
a premature look at the quantity can be a distraction which yields misleading results.
The best example for this is the exchange. Everybody is trying to get more in return than
they have to give away. Not only in use-value but also, if possible, in value. Therefore if you
only look at the quantity you miss the important fact that the exchange is a big equalizer:
that all the qualitatively different commodities are equated to each other. Exchange makes
the space of all commodities one-dimensional, and Marx infers from this that the commodities
must be one-dimensional already before the exchange, namely, they are all products of
human labor.
Marx’s main justification for first looking at quality and only afterwards at quantity is
the very abstract logical argument that things are only then quantitatively comparable if they
are qualitatively equal. Since in the case of M-C-M it is so counterintuitive to abstract from
quantities, he gives in this situation additional justification. He says that a M-C-M in which
the second M is equal to or smaller than the first may happen without being intended. Spawnblade’s
[444] example of the stocks falls into this category: although the intent was to get
more money from the sale, sometimes the best one can do is to sell at a loss. Spawnblade’s
other example with trading in a car is interesting because in this situation, the intent is from
the beginning to trade it in at a loss. Here M-C-M is not the main driver of the transaction,
but M-C-M is only a subordinate element in a protracted case of C-M-C.
Trailrunner [450] explains the disregard of the quantitative aspect by the irrationality of
the capitalist who acts like a gambler:
If a capitalist is all about accumulating money, then wouldn’t there be pleasure
in the exchange of money regardless of whether profits were being
made with each exchange or not?
The different between the capitalist and the compulsive gambler in Las Vegas is that in
the long run, the gambler loses to the casino, while the capitalist in the long run is the casino.
Trailrunner writes:
A capitalist, in exchanging money for money may not always walk away
with a profit, but will very likely eventually be like the casino, and win the
profits in the long run.
How did the capitalist get promoted from the sorry addicted (and exploited) gambler to
the casino? If you own the means of production, then markets are very kind to you, and you
can make money in many different ways. Therefore it is worth while to establish yourself

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 179
in the market. For years, Amazon was losing money on every book they sold, but now they
are very profitable. And Walmart is so successful because their prices are so low. AOL has
been distributing free diskettes and CDs for years and years, at great expense, in an attempt
to get more customers – but in their case it was apparently less successful. One often sees
M-C-M seemingly without regard to profitability, as a loss leader to establish a business
which eventually may be extremely profitable.
Next Message by Hans is [472].
Question 440 is 442 in 2008fa:
Question 440 Why does Marx’s investigation of M −C − M ′ take the form of a comparison
with C − M −C?
[448] CousinIt: graded A C-M-C vs M-C-M. The cycle C-M-C is one that we are
already familiar with as it has been the focus of Marx’s discussion thusfar. The development
of commodity circulation is the precursor to the emergence of capital. In the process of
circulation of commodities, money is the mediator which allows agents to exchange their
own use-values with other use-values. The agents trade one use-value with another through
the medium of money. This can be characterized as a metamorphosis of the commodity. I
start with use-value and end with use-value.
In C-M-C, it is the commodity that is metamorphised. That is, I am transforming usevalue
of one sort into another that is more useful for myself. This end is the expenditure of
value and commodity exchange that ends in use-value being consumed.
M-C-M is the inversion of commodity circulation. Rather than the purpose being to transform
the use-value I have into a use-value that is more useful for me, what I am interested in
is ‘advancing’ my capital for the sake of capital itself. Capital in itself is not a use-value, but
is an accumulation of value for the sake of accumulation of value. The end of the M-C-M
cycle is no longer the transformation of use-value, but rather a perversion of the circulation
of commodities with a primary purpose of the development and accumulation of money.
Marx compares M-C-M with C-M-C because C-M-C is a natural outcome of commodity
development as well as the precondition for the emergence of capital. Marx compares C-M-
C with M-C-M in order to begin to formulate an illustration and analysis of the nature of the
perversion of commodity circulation that gives rise to the M-C-M circuit.
From this point, we might guess that we will encounter the fact that there are some who
do not have capital (M) and therefore are caught in the C-M-C circuit, by virtue of the fact
that they start only with the commodity that is their own labor and must transform it into usevalue
as their end, and have little or nothing left over to be able to participate in the M-C-M
circuit. These unfortunates are inevitably locked into a cycle that starts with C and ends with
C. This is, however, relatively normal and necessary. The perverted and miserly capitalist
begins and ends with capital (M), which has no use-value other than as a means to more
capital (M). This root perversion opens the way for a plethora of pathological consequences.
The comparison of M-C-M with C-M-C highlights the perversity of the M-C-M cycle.
Hans: This is very good, although Marx would probably add that commodity production already has a lot of
perversion built in, see the fetish-like character of the commodity, etc., just to make sure nobody thinks (like

180 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Proudhon) that “sane” commodity production, which does not commit the perversion of capitalism, would be
possible with modern technology.
Message [448] referenced by [2008fa:716]. Next Message by CousinIt is [577].
Question 442 is 211 in 1996sp, 211 in 1996ut, 288 in 1998WI, 300 in 1999SP, 337 in
2001fa, 366 in 2002fa, 381 in 2003fa, 426 in 2004fa, 401 in 2005fa, 433 in 2007SP, 436
in 2007fa, 460 in 2009fa, 497 in 2010fa, 530 in 2012fa, and 497 in Answer:
Question 442 If someone first buys a car, and after two years trades it in for a new car, is
that C − M −C or M −C − M?
If someone first buys a house, then after ten years decides to move and sells his house for a
profit, is this C − M −C or M −C − M?
If a farmer raises wheat, then at the end of the year sells his crop and with the proceeds buys
the materials to raise next year’s wheat, is that C − M −C or M −C − M?
[449] Trailrunner: graded A M-C-M means, “I want more money!” In the first part of
the question, a person buying a car, selling it and purchasing another car, is simply looking
at the consumption of the use-value of the vehicle. This individual is not out to make money,
but looking at obtaining money by the sale of the first vehicle, in order to allow the purchase
the second vehicle. In this case, it is C-M-C that is taking place. This individual is circulating
commodities and the money is said to be expended - the money transfers from one person to
another.
In the second part of the question, the individual purchasing the home and then selling it
for a profit is looking at the money/earnings that can be obtained by the sale of the home. In
this case, the home has become an exchange value, as in the case of M-M’. The end purpose
for the purchase of the home was an accumulation of money. There is no mention of this
individual taking the money only to be able to purchase another home, thus it is the M-C-M
process that is taking place. The commodity has been transformed into money and is said to
be money advanced.
The third part of the question looks at a farmer that is raising wheat to sell, in order to
obtain money to purchase more wheat so that it can be sold again. He is working through
the M-C-M process. The farmer is working in an endless cycle in which the wheat is just a
commodity that is sold for more money and the cycle continues. Had the farmer taken the
money from the sale of the wheat and purchased something else, like a car, the wheat would
have been a commodity being traded for another commodity with a use-value for the farmer.
The money in this case is “flowing back to the the person that originally spent it.” It can also
be noted that this “reflux,” as Marx calls it, is not based upon the farmer selling the wheat
for more than it was paid for, it is looking only at the fact that the money continues to go
back to the same person over and over again.
Hans: I agree with all your answers. But the reasoning of (b) should not be made dependent on the motivation of
the home owners, see my [2004fa:284]. If you make it dependent, you’d have to say it can go both ways, as Jason
[452] and Goethe [462] do.
Message [449] referenced by [452] and [462]. Next Message by Trailrunner is [450].
[452] Jason: C-M-C Hummer Time. While Trailrunner in [449] already answered this
question, I felt I could add a few more tidbits to his answer.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 181
Buying a car, using it for a two years and trading it in is considered C-M-C like Trailrunner
said. He said you buy it to use, then sell it to put the money towards another car
which potentially has more use-value. It might have a nicer interior, be faster, etc. Another
way to look at why it is C-M-C is to look at why it could not be M-C-M. Cars traditionally
depreciate in value, there are rare exceptions, but they almost always depreciate. In fact, I’ve
heard cars can depreciate by up to 25% of their value just by driving a new one off the lot.
There is no real way to use a car in the M-C-M cycle and end up with more money than you
started (unless you manufactured the car), and since its purpose is the accumulation of more
money, it would not fit.
For the purchase of a home, I feel this situation could go both ways. Trailrunner says
“There is no mention of this individual taking the money only to be able to purchase another
home, thus it is the M-C-M process that is taking place.” This is how he justifies that the
purchase and sale of this home is M-C-M. He bought the house and sold it for a profit, so he
starts with money and ends with more money. Generally houses appreciate in value, though
the recent collapse might make that hard to believe. One could easily purchase a house, live
in it or fill it with tenants, keep it for a few years and sell it for a profit. Assuming you had
the starting capital, buying a house is a great way to accumulate more money. However, the
reason this could go both ways is because everyone, more or less, needs a house to live in.
Typically when people buy houses for the sole purpose of reselling for profit, they either fill
it with tenants, or do not wait 10 years to resell. The owner of this house could have very
well needed to leave the area and the house happened to be worth more than when he bought
it. I know this requires some assumptions of things not listed in the problem, but I think it
is good to make the point that just because you get more money out than you put in doesn’t
mean you did it just to accumulate more money. If the owner spends the money on a newer
and bigger house he increased quality of life which falls under C-M-C.
As far as the farmer goes, I agree with Trailrunner. The farmer is simply buying the wheat
to sell for profit, then repeating the process each season. He may take some of the excess
money to spend on other commodities, but these are irrelevant to the closed M-C-M cycle.
Message [452] referenced by [449], [462], and [2009fa:910]. Next Message by Jason is [461].
[460] Mick: content C form 95% Under the first scenario the individual involved undergoes
a C-M-C transition, in that he/she enjoys the use value of a car (a commodity)
exchanges it as a form of money, and uses its monetary value to acquire a newer automobile,
thus returning to the utlization of a distinct commodity.
In the second example they use money to purchase a house which they use for ten years,
and then flip that house to end up with a monetary profit. (M-C-M)
The genesis of this third instance is a crop (a distinct commodity) which is sold for
M(money) which is used to purchase materials (commodities) for use to raise the wheat
for the following year. Here the process is C-M-C.
Hans: Your answer to (c) is wrong, and you should have referred to the earlier answers.
Message [460] referenced by [462] and [464]. Next Message by Mick is [558].
[462] Goethe: graded B+ What profit would a house sale bring in today? I am looking
at Mick’s response [460]. I feel he is close but I have some input;

182 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
(1) Appears to be C-M-C. . . I question which commodity was exchanged for the car.
Was it the labor expressed as form of money? I can see where this could be an M-C-M. . .
you exchange money for the car and then you have money again. . . the big difference here
is you have a smaller amount of money.
(2) This scenario could go either way. The exchange begins with money converted to
a house (C) and then is traded for money. The house was utilized for several years and
provided use value for the owner. The difference here is that a profit was probably realized,
but even so, the money from the transaction most likely went to purchase another home. I
see this as C-M-C-M-C if another house was purchased (if not why would the person sell
after 10 years?) in another scenario if a house was purchased for a discount and improved
for profit then sold in the short term, it would be M-C-M. . . as a means to profit from money,
the money was held for investment and exchanged for a commodity which was held for a
short time then sold for profit in exchange for money that will be held for reinvestment.
(3) As for the farmer; this could also be M-C-M. . . .. The farmer is the owner of production
and his motives are profit. . . but realistically this is the purest form of C-M-C. . . . the
commodity corn is exchanged for money (M), and exchanged for equipment (a commodity)
. . .
So it looks like you nailed it other than the deal with the house, it was not stated that
the intention of the house purchase was to flip it. . . . I also noticed that Trailrunner in [449]
shares your opinion. . . I could be way off but this is how I see it.
Hans: You should not only look at one or two previous answers, but at all of them. This is easy if you download
the pdf archives. Then you would have seen that your point about (b) was already made by Jason [452].
And your and Mick’s answer to (c) are wrong. Instead of saying you may be wrong I would have preferred
you using some reasoning to resolve the discrepancy. For instance as follows: if one repeats M-C-M one gets the
sequence M-C-M-C-M which has a C-M-C in the middle. This is the C-M-C you see in (c).
Message [462] referenced by [449] and [474]. Next Message by Goethe is [463].
[464] Slash: If someone buys a car and later sells the car it would be C-M-C. This is the
case because the car is used by the purchaser so the use value is taken advantage of. Later
the car is sold, which would be the money, but only to be then used to purchase another car
completing the cycle of C-M-C.
The second example is M-C-M. When the house was purchased with money to obtain the
commodities, the house, it was then turned back into money once it was sold.
The third example is a case of C-M-C. Because the crop is a commodity that is sold for
money. The money gained by selling the crop is then used to buy materials to raise wheat,
so this is a case of C-M-C
Hans: This is exactly the same thing Mick said in [460], without any extra arguments and nothing. You also came
at the tail end of a long discussion, without referring to any of it.
Next Message by Slash is [465].
[472] Hans: The answers which I consider best. This question has been discussed
ad nauseam in the archives. Here are my answers and references where these answers are
explained in most detail:
(1) is C-M-C or, better, L-M-C. See [1996ut:211].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 183
(2) is M-C-M although for a long time I argued it was L-M-C. [2004fa:284] explains why
I changed my mind.
(3) is M-C-M, and look at the last paragraph in my comments to [2007SP:704].
Message [472] referenced by [Answer:1] and [2009fa:648]. Next Message by Hans is [475].
[474] Goethe: Sometimes it is better not to overthink ideas. I was close on my evaluation
in [462] of the farmer as being an example of M-C-M.. But I had to look at it a little closer. . .
and I missed . . .
Next Message by Goethe is [504].
Question 444 is 435 in 2007SP and 500 in 2010fa:
Question 444 Why does Marx place so much emphasis on the “reflux” of money implied in
the form M −C − M?
[456] Goethe: graded A– Acid reflux anyone? The reflux of money is the motivation
that drives capitalism, and it is also the dirty secret of capitalists. I think Marx recognized
that to have M-C-M the initial value which equates money would need to be derived from
unnatural means i.e., money received from the sale and profit of labor power of workers.
This also brings into question of where or how the initial money was acquired. This is the
other illusion of capitalism, that we all have a chance to be the owner of production, the
promise of wealth from hard work and honest labor.
I like what CousinIt states on [446] “Your manager probably ‘classifies’ himself as being
above you. He may have an education and/or he may have reached his position through
work experience or simple doled privilege (he has a daddy, a mommy, a girlie, or a buddy or
he is particularly socially-situated so as to be given his position as your ‘manager’)” This is
in reference to someone in authority, but it has certain parallels to the current class system.
In order to achieve the means to become a successful capitalist and participate in M-C-M
one needs to have an advantage over the ordinary person. It is true that one in a million will
find the means to break free from their working class cage, and become multi-millionaires,
but even these will have some advantages not afforded the average person. I believe that
Marx recognized this and was able to identify the long run effect of reflux of money; the
ever widening gap of social class and the increasing exploitation of the workers’ labor for
profit.
Conclusion: I think Hans states this best in the annotations on the top of page 326 “Capitalists
get what they spend and workers spend what they get”. If we were all paid a fair
wage for our labor there would be no profits for the owners of production, and the corporate
executives will never cut profits in favor of their labor. It is all about sale and profit...resale
... profit... the circle of capitalism. We are all caught in this vicious circle to quote Thoreau
“the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation” This is due to the fact that the mass of men
do not own or monopolize the means of production.
Hans: Marx is arguing on a much more technical level than you. He claims that the structure of circulation is such
that the money the capitalists advance will eventually flow back to them. This technicality allows capitalists to
remain capitalists. It is one of several factors which contribute to the class inequality which you are describing.
Next Message by Goethe is [462].

184 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 452 is 182 in 1995ut, 217 in 1996sp, 234 in 1997WI, 294 in 1998WI, 306 in
1999SP, 344 in 2001fa, 373 in 2002fa, 387 in 2003fa, 442 in 2007SP, 445 in 2007fa, 455
in 2008fa, and 474 in 2009fa:
Question 452 Why does monetary wealth have the urge to multiply itself? (Do not describe
at this point how it does it but why in modern society the unlimited accumulation of wealth
is such an overriding and powerful objective.)
[458] Tim: content B+ form 95% In today’s capitalist society there is most definitely an
overwhelming desire for most, if not all, to gain wealth, and lots of it. There is something
about being a millionaire or having an endless supply of money that tempts the poorest of
the poor and the richest of the rich. Wealth is an interesting thing though. Is a man only
wealthy because he has money or because he has more than his neighbor? To a man on the
street who has nothing, one who is living out of his car might seem wealthy. Or to a man
who is worth millions, his neighbor who is worth billions will seem wealthy.
Thus does being wealthy mean having lots of money or just having more of it than your
neighbor. If the latter is the case, then therein lies the answer to the question of why the
acumination of wealth is such a powerful objective in the capitalist society. It is not so much
the accumulation of wealth that is the driving force but the accumulation of more wealth
than your neighbor that is the source of the desire.
In our natural desire to be more and have more than the next guy, we are obsessed with
the thought that if we could only have more money, or if we can only get our hands on
that nice boat, car, or house then all our problems will be dissolved. Once those objects are
obtained and in our possession and the problems are still in existence then the bigger house
or car becomes our desire. Thus man’s search for “happiness” continues in its competitive
manner until all are possessed with the desire to have more.
Hans: You are missing the structural reasons which are emphasized by Marx. A good discussion of the issues can
be found in [1999SP:179] and the two other answers in the same year.
Message [458] referenced by [615]. Next Message by Tim is [459].
[597] Srichardson: graded A Monetary Wealth. The goal of achieving absolute wealth
can never be realized. Any amount of money is limited because it can eventually be used
up. In modern society worth is determined by commodity wealth therefore an individual
will prove his social validity by means of conspicuous consumption which may also by the
valorization of money gives a human a feeling of security or piece of mind. According to
Hans in [1999SP:206] “This is where individual motivation comes into play.” He goes on to
say that “the urge to multiply monetary wealth is on a social and individual level.”
Hans would argue that social forces are prevalent because the individual motivations are
derived from the social structure. The urge to multiply monetary wealth arises due to people
needing security and economic insecurity is a way to keep people adhering to these societal
norms.
Next Message by Srichardson is [598].
[615] Chris: Excess greed and power. I have read many intriguing submissions to this
question in [1999SP:179] thanks to Hans’s reference to these discussions in Tim’s [458]. My
personal thought which I think a Marxist would argue to be true is that an individual’s access
to capital, control, and greed are very detrimental factors affecting capitalists’ unlimited

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 185
accumulation of wealth. These individual factors are also determined by what is ‘socially
acceptable.’ Veblen points this out in [1999SP:180] which Hans builds on top of in his
[1999SP:206], specifically the third point. For instance, one of the most popular shows on
MTV aimed at a target audience of high school and college students is the show “MTV
Cribs,” where celebrities and other social elites flaunt their new “toys” which usually consist
of Bentleys, Lamborghinis, and plasma TVs. Our society today is destroying culture as we
know it through the use of such programs and are contributing to the multiplication of wealth
and greed.
There were also a few comments to Question 458 in our current class that I feel play
into dissecting Question 452. I feel that our society is ingraining these new “social values”
of excess greed and control and we are seeing a new addiction to such excess forming.
Capitalists along with many average hardworking Americans are constantly trying to keep
up with what their neighbors have in terms of materialistic goods.
I think this addiction brought upon by the corruption of what is deemed “appropriate” in
our society affects all individuals of all backgrounds. The multiplication of wealth is most
apparent in the capitalists because they are in charge of production and are in the eyes of
our public society. These capitalists will accumulate as much as they can by growing their
private property (factories, etc.) and personal property (cars, etc.) at the exploitation of their
workers. This vice continues to multiply through corporate greed and power, which is now
socially accepted by American standards as I have seen through the use of popular television
programs.
Next Message by Chris is [616].
[623] Jason: Maverick in [1999SP:179] says that money has the ability to buy any usevalue,
but it is limited in how much it can buy. Eventually you will run out of money and not
be able to buy more. Therefore people want to make money to help achieve the true value
of money by having as much of it as they can.
Another way of looking at it is people’s social status is largely determined by how much
stuff they have. This leads into an endless cycle because the more things you have, the
more money you need to afford them, due to large house payments, car payments, club
memberships, etc. That and if the person is looking into the future they will probably want
money saved up for further expenses. Therefore in our modern society the perpetual pursuit
of money is almost required. Or at least it seems like it is to most people.
Next Message by Jason is [783].
[625] Slash: Monetary explosion. Monetary wealth has the urge to multiply itself because
money is a social imperative. Society finds that qualitatively money is unlimited,
which explains why the accumulation of money is attractive with the ability to qualitatively
consume and obtain goods. There is also the fact of wanting more because others in a capitalistic
society have more, this is the idea of keeping up with the neighbors. If the neighbors
get a new boat there is a want for a bigger newer boat, in order to show them up. This can
then be seen as a symbol of status rather than the simple use-value equated with a boat alone.
Next Message by Slash is [708].
[686] CousinIt: graded A insatiable wealth. Monetary wealth in modern society has the
urge to multiply itself indefinitely because of to main factors; the structure of capitalism

186 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
as a socio-economic system coupled with the nature of money. In the structure of capitalism,
as its name denotes, the driving goal to which there is no ideological upper limit is
to increase capital. More capital (as ownership of the means of production or as monetary
wealth) equals more power and socio-economic status and security. The structure of capitalist
society, which has everything to do with the ideological investments of those under
its yoke, dictates a particular definition and popular vision of ‘success’ which is necessarily
linked to accumulation as the prime vehicle of attainment. Money has a universal qualitative
characteristic that comes into sharp contradiction with its finite quantitative characteristic.
Qualitatively, money as the universal equivalent has the characteristic that it can be exchanged
for any and all commodities. Because capitalist society is focused on material
accumulation as the primal goal, it follows that the more money one has, the more power
one has, not only over others in society but presumably over one’s own ability to survive
and to enhance and secure one’s survival. The implicit underlying notion that the urge to
multiply wealth is driven by is that one can never have enough money to buy or to stockpile
every commodity available for purchase, that is, one can never be powerful enough to
achieve immortality. The perceived need to multiply wealth is therefore infinite.
Quantitatively, money has the characteristic that it comes in a finite amount. There cannot
ever be an infinity of material wealth. Money always comes in a finite sum and can only buy
as much as that finite sum will allow. This finite quantitative property of money comes into
contradiction with money’s qualitative property as that of being universally exchangeable.
These contradictory quantitative and qualitative properties of money interact with the
structure of capitalism. Capitalism forms the structural and ideological ground as well as
logical warrant for the insane project of trying to secure one’s immortality by means of
material accumulation of wealth. What this amounts to is an irrational rationalism (of the
sort that Horkheimer and Adorno discuss in their book “Dialectics of Enlightenment”) that
justifies and maintains the capitalist system even though it clearly has very negative and
potentially fatal effects on the vast majority of human beings globally, not to mention its
negative and dangerous effects on all life on the planet. This overarching irrational rationale
(as popular consensus) dictates the behaviors of its participants despite the facts of its detriment
to their survival as a people or as a society, and perhaps as a species. Under capitalism,
we are thus victims of ‘occupational psychosis’ of the sort I have discussed in [13] earlier in
the semester.
Hans: The structural social reasons do not only include money as source of power and status symbol, but also the
separation of the direct producers from their means of production and therefore the availability of labor-power as a
commodity.
Next Message by CousinIt is [690].
[718] Andy: In Class Response
Monetary wealth has the urge to multiply itself because of greed, and not just greed but
the constant comparing of people in a society. Someone In class gave this example and
I believe that they hit the nail on the head. They talk about how a man who lives in a
car maybe more wealthy to a guy that has no place to sleep, or a millionare may think that a
billionare is wealthy. These are some examples but monetary wealth has the urge to multiply

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 187
itself because everyone is comparing themselves to their neighbor which is a never ending
road, and this is what multiplies itself. Its the “they have it I need it” attitude.
Out of Class Response
In adding to what I said in class, Marx says qualitatively, money gives access to all usevalues,
qualitatively it is universal. This qualitative univerality comes in conflict with its
quantitative boundedness, since money always only exists as a limited sum of money. This
conflict tries to come to a resolution by quantitative expansion. The drive for quantitative
expansion belongs therefor to the nature of money.
Hans: A formulation in your own words would have been better than a literal copy from the Annotations. If you
don’t use your own words I have no way knowing if you understand it now, and the re-formulation of the same idea
by different people in their own words also is a useful addition to the archives.
Next Message by Andy is [719].
[762] Samantha: Capitalists are just compulsive gamblers, unable to leave the table.
One of the assigned questions during this past semester was on how capitalists are like
alcoholics in that they sacrifice long-term positive gains for short term fulfillment. Part of
the reason that wealth has the urge to multiply itself is because of this fact, that the very
structure of capitalism, which is to produce, to own and to make money. Capitalism is about
the exploitation of labor and maximizing gains through minimizing costs. For example it
is not about making the safest car but about making a car safe enough to pass government
regulations.
Capitalists want to control the means of production and they are always competing amongst
themselves, which causes them to want more money to compete. More than just being an
alcoholic, capitalists are like compulsive gamblers, they stay at the table and play the game
not like it, or because they want to but because they keep thinking they are going to make a
real gain. They forget that the house always wins, capitalism is the winner, not individuals,
especially the laborers.
An easy example of this is Kmart. The government has limited the amount that any
one company can have within a market, so instead Kmart buys out their suppliers or their
distributors. They gain but it still doesn’t seem enough so they expand how many stores
they have, and so on. They grow until they are unable to grow anymore, and they start to
decay while another group of capitalists comes in and takes over, much like Kmart did in
the beginning. The downsize then causes then to loss some the gains they had made, exactly
like the gambler, unable to leave the profit game.
Next Message by Samantha is [763].
Question 457 is 310 in 1999SP, 391 in 2003fa, 516 in 2010fa, and 551 in 2012fa:
Question 457 Can a situation which gives you subjective satisfaction be a situation of “enslavement”?
Are there other examples for this than the capitalist?
[447] PrivateProperty: Systems of Enslavement: Drugs, Sex, and The Matrix. Probably
the most poignant and relevant example I can think of is that of physical addiction. In these
situations, a certain thing which has provided pleasure (alcohol, sex, drugs) eventually becomes
the center around which addicts make their decisions. Addicts become physically
enslaved to their addictions.

188 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
In years past, Guyote [1999SP:191] made a reference to masochism (which, for the unfamiliar,
is gratification, usually sexual, from pain, suffering, and restraint). The reference
is interesting as it is recognized as a psychiatric disorder, the acquisition of which is hardly
under one’s control; thus, one could said to be “enslaved” by this disorder, yet deriving
pleasure from it. As a response, Hans made the connection that perhaps the capitalist is a
sort of masochist, deriving pleasure from activities that are ultimately to his detriment. In
a later thread, Raleigh [2003fa:341] points out that there is a problem with this analogy, as
masochists are aware of their disorder, while capitalists are not.
With this in mind, I am reminded of the situation presented in the popular film The Matrix,
in which our reality is in fact a computer-generated illusion which we are plugged into. The
“real world” is in fact one in which humans are enslaved by machines. In the film, the Matrix
was created to keep humans unaware of their own enslavement; and the only way the Matrix
could be sustainable was if there were opportunities for pleasure and happiness. Thus, I feel
the Matrix is a fitting analogy for the Capitalist system, though in Capitalism the system
itself is responsible for the creation and perpetuation of the enslavement of its participants,
not some external agent. Or is it....?
The Matrix concept is nothing new. It is essentially a modern version of the “brain in
a vat” thought experiment (look it up), which presupposes a disembodied brain, placed in
a vat, that is connected to a supercomputer that recreates the same electrical signals that a
normal brain receives. Thus, this disembodied brain may be experiencing a reality that does
not, in fact, exist. The “brain in a vat” concept is itself derived from Descartes, who, in the
words of Wikipedia, wrote that “...he could not trust his perceptions on the grounds that an
evil demon might, conceivably, be controlling his every experience.” Interesting, huh?
Message [447] referenced by [2010fa:593]. Next Message by PrivateProperty is [505].
Question 458 is 448 in 2007SP, 461 in 2008fa, 480 in 2009fa, and 517 in 2010fa:
Question 458 Can one say that the capitalists are addicted to making money?
[453] Alex: graded B Addiction. I don’t believe that anyone can define addiction quite
as well as Marx. His views on addiction are very specific and direct, even more so when
they are put in the context of the capitalist. The capitalist is truly led to believe that he is
overseeing the laborer and Marx goes as far as to call it enslavement. This alienation of the
process and labor is extremely important to understanding the mindset of the capitalist.
What does a capitalist have to gain from enslavement of the laborer? This conversation
is abstract, but describes what the capitalist “needs” to justify himself. As Marx put it the
“self-valorization” of capital. What does the capitalist really have to prove. A logical person
removed from the situation would wonder why a capitalist has to go to such lengths. But
this comes back to addiction. Marx is not just talking about a casual addiction, he is talking
about a full fledged must have addiction.
One can wonder to what degree this addiction is real in today’s business world. You may
not see it at the entry level position, but as you look higher and higher there is a tremendous
sense of need to control, exercise power and increase your position. The top rung of a large
firm is not reserved for those who are casually addicted, top jobs are saved for those who are

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 189
willing to give anything for the firm. The ramifications of which are felt today just as they
were in Marx’s time. Greed knows all times and all places.
I am very intrigued by Marx’s definition of addiction and I wonder where it has value used
elsewhere. I wonder what I am “addicted” to and I wonder about others as well. One thing I
am sure of is that addiction as it relates to money is one of the most addictive addictions one
can have.
Hans: Marx does not use the word “addiction,” and in [2007SP:701] I try to explain why not.
Hans: On re-reading this I notice that you seem to think “self-valorization” is a psychological term, that the capitalist
tries to assert his value by making more and more money. This is not at all what Marx means. “Valorization”
is what value does when it is in motion, namely, add to its quantity.
Message [453] referenced by [578]. Next Message by Alex is [468].
[576] Alcameron: Capitalists Anonymous? We’ve all heard the term Work-a-holic,
referring to someone who works too much and playing off the term alcoholic, someone
who drinks too much alcohol, or has an addiction. So who are work-a-holics, workers or
capitalists? In order to understand if capitalists have an addiction to making money we must
look at the level of enslavement they suffer. There is no doubt that capitalists’ actions are
geared toward turning a greater profit and acquiring more capital and more wealth. Their
actions are self-destructive though, just as many addicts have self-destructive habits. Are
they enslaved as capitalists or addicted?
Workers are enslaved by the capitalists for their labor power. The capitalist is benefiting
from enslaving the worker and acquiring more money. Some capitalists may say they are
enslaved because they must choose to continue as a capitalist or sell their labor to another
capitalist, so they are merely making a decision of which side of the fence to be on rather
than enslaving their workers. What drives them to desire more and more money? Well an
addiction is an easy answer, it just never seems to be enough. Why can they not pay a higher
wage to their workers, receive less profit, and afford the worker a chance to receive more
income for their labor? Just as a drug addict continues habits that hurt themselves and other
around them, the capitalist continues to enslave workers to feed their addiction of money.
By looking at some of the most powerful capitalists we can see this addiction in a glaring
fashion. What need does Bill Gates have for another million, or billion dollars? If he chose
not to work another day in his life, he and 3 generations could live off of the interest accumlated
by his wealth. Is work not a means to survive and supply for your loved ones? Well for
the average worker it is, but for the capitalist it is a way to feed an addiction that can never
be satisfied.
Message [576] referenced by [578]. Next Message by Alcameron is [735].
[578] Hans: Is Capitalism Based on Addiction? It would be wrong to say that capitalism
exists because the capitalists are addicted to money. The necessity of economic “growth”
and the concentration of wealth are powerful social imperatives. Marx does not explain them
by the greed of the capitalists, but by the one-dimensionality of money and the availability
of labor-power as a commodity.
On the other hand, these structural imperatives are supplemented and strengthened by
the motivations of the capitalists to make a lot of money. Making money can be an allconsuming
obsession which harms not only the worker but also the capitalist himself, as
Alcameron stresses in [576]. Marx remarked that the workers are not the only ones alienated;

190 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
the capitalists are alienated too because they devote their lives to the stupid and senseless
drive of money to increase itself. But if someone thinks the only choices available are
either the alienation of a worker or that of a capitalist, and chooses the capitalist, this is
not necessarily a sign of addiction. Perhaps these individuals are just trying to be better
providers for their families. (I am using here ideas from [576].)
Global Warming brings in new perspectives. Does the inability of our society to do what
is necessary to save ourselves from climate catastrophe not have parallels to the behavior of
an addict? An addict is driven down a self-destructive path by near-term rewards and pains.
I still don’t think that capitalism, as Marx understood it, can be equated to an addiction. It
is more akin to an infantile disorder, to growing pains in humankind’s historical progression.
But this conflictual development phase may have prepared the ground for our society’s
addiction to fossil fuels. Instead of getting rid of the capitalists, the working class entered
into an uneasy compromise with them based on a joint exploitation of the bonanza of fossil
fuels. And now we cannot turn away from fossil fuels because neither of the classes is strong
enough to shift the cost of switching to renewable energy to the other class. If this is the case,
then the best strategy to avert global warming would be a mass movement strengthening the
working class enough so that they can force the capitalists to eat the costs of switching to a
sustainable economy.
Brief comments about the previous submissions: Alex [453] explains capitalism by the
addiction of the capitalists, while Alcameron [576] seems more open to the possibility that
the capitalists’ relentless drive for profits, which goes to the extent where it no longer benefits
them personally or anybody else, may not come from their own motivation but is a necessity
of the system they live in.
Message [578] referenced by [646], [753], and [2008fa:713]. Next Message by Hans is [580].
[626] Kevin: graded A Capitalists are not addicted to making money but it is value itself
that gains value and compels the capitalists to try and gain more [2007SP:701]. While
it seems we are constantly tearing the capitalist down being the source of this evil, it is
an unfortunate necessary evil of the capitalist’s environment that he must make money to
survive. It is true that there are some capitalists that are consumed by making money which
harms not only them but their environment as well, but in general capitalists are not addicted
to making money. They just look for ways to improve their standard of living by taking
advantage of the capitalist economy.
Next Message by Kevin is [627].
[673] PrivateProperty: Addiction. Yes, one could say that, in reaping surplus value of
workers, the capitalist experiences pleasure and wants to reproduce this sensation over and
over again. In this sense it would be a chemical addiction in the brain.
But the reason the reaping of this surplus value is pleasurable in the first place stems
from the commodity relation and thus social structure as a whole. In this sense an individual
capitalist can’t be blamed for their addiction. The entire capitalist system uses individuals
(both capitalists and laborers) as marionettes to achieve the ends of capital.
Just as an addiction is uncontrollable and takes on a life of its own, capital also becomes
an end unto itself controlling the behaviors of market participants.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 191
Hans: Your in-class answer had also the sentence: “It is actually the capitalist system in totality that is addicted to
making money.” This is an important additional point that is missing in your resubmission. The accumulation of
monetary wealth and growth are not imposed on the system by the greed or the addiction of the capitalists, but they
are built into the system.
Next Message by PrivateProperty is [677].
[684] Dyoung: I would say that capitalists are addicted to making money. They tend to
become “workaholics” because they are so involved in making money and always trying
to figure out more efficient ways to increase there profits. As they gain more profits they
become addicted to exploiting their workers to make more money.
Capitalists tend to hire workers for their labor power but ends up paying them just for
their labor because if they do this the capitalist ends up with more gains. Which looks like
an addiction to me. As employee’s work that extra hour over what he is paid the capitalist
starts benefiting ten fold.
There are many examples of individuals who we see as addicted to money. Bill Gates
would be a great example. He already has made more money than one person could ever
need in a lifetime. He never needs to work another day but we know that he still works
because he loves money, “he is addicted” I believe it has to do with power, people are
addicted to power and money tends to give people that power. The more money you have
the more powerful you become. I don’t think that it is a good thing that capitalists are
addicted to money. I believe that any addiction is not good, when you become addicted to
something you can’t go without it and you will do anything to get it. Which in a capitalist
case they start too work to many hours and avoid their family and social lives, they end up
exploiting their employees making them unhappy about coming to work. Addictions are
scary things and are something that everyone needs to be aware of. But capitalists do tend
to be addicted to money because they have access to more than those who are the workers.
Hans: In your second paragraph you have labor and labor-power reversed. Capitalists hire laborers, i.e., buy their
labor-power, because they want to materialize their labor in a product they can sell. This labor creates more value
than the value they have to pay for labor-power (the reproduction cost of their labor-power).
You are also missing the systemic dimension of this addiction.
Next Message by Dyoung is [685].
[735] Alcameron: One cannot say that capitalists are addicted to making money. Capitalists
choose which side of the fence to be on, they can either exploit workers for their labor or
be exploited by another capitalist. Rather than being enslaved to another capitalist by selling
their labor, some capitalists prefer to exploit the labor power of others. This still bodes the
question though, why do capitalists always strive for more? No amount of money or capital
ever seems to be enough. Like a drug addict the capitalists’ actions are self-destructive. In
this sense it may be an addiction, but overall the capitalists’ actions play an important role
in the market.
Hans: If they don’t strive for more they will not remain capitalists for long. It is grow or die for them.
Next Message by Alcameron is [736].
[753] Clayon: An addiction is a self-destructive course one takes by ignoring long-term
consequences and only focusing on the short-term wants and desires. Capitalists themselves
are not addicted to making money, but capitalism indirectly has made society addicted and
dependent on things such as fossil fuel and convenience (including the capitalists’). Neither
the laborer nor the capitalist wants to bear the cost of changing energy sources. These costs

192 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
could altogether be avoided if we decided to live different lifestyles, heating our homes and
using transportation that does not require the use of fossil fuel (horse and buggy), but society
prefers the short-term convenience. Thus we see that it is the social relation to which the
capitalist is enslaved.
Hans: My [578] tried to explain society’s present inability to properly respond to global warming in the context of
the over 200-year-old class struggle between capitalist and worker. Your reading of it strips all the class struggle
out and makes it a matter of human shortsightedness, laziness, and inertia. This is quite a different explanation.
BTW, nobody proposes to go back to horse and buggy. People are talking about mass transit, electric cars,
bicycles on a safe network of bikepaths, and reduction of urban sprawl.
Next Message by Clayon is [755].
[758] Ken: addiction. You could say a capitalist becomes addicted to money because of
the capitalistic society that he lives in. The capitalistic society creates an unlimited want for
money. The more money you have the more commodities you can buy. There is a nearly
unlimited amount of commodities you can buy. This is where people would consider the
capitalist addicted to money because the capitalist always wants more material wealth.
Hans: Capitalism is a society in which value is a dynamic, expanding quantity. This is not caused by the capitalists
but by the one-dimensionality of monetary wealth (which you mention) and by the separation of the working class
from the means of production and therefore the availability of the commodity labor-power on the market (which
you also should have mentioned).
Next Message by Ken is [759].
Question 470 is 306 in 1998WI, 340 in 2000fa, 402 in 2003fa, 451 in 2004fa, 463 in
2007fa, 529 in 2010fa, 545 in 2011fa, 569 in 2012fa, and 529 in Answer:
Question 470 Does Marx argue in 258:2/o that capitalist profits are middleman’s profits,
and if buyer and seller sold directly to each other, there would be no profit?
[481] Ande: Yes in a sense Marx argues that the capitalist profits are the middleman’s
profits, he does not openly come out and say that but when he starts switching around the
equation from M-C-M to C-M-C I personally feel he is trying to say that capitalist profits are
the middleman’s profits. It is a very challenging question but after doing the readings I have
deciphered that Marx has a lot of hidden things in his readings and when he did switch the
equations I was taking it as the capitalist profits are the middleman’s profits. I have to say
that although he said that about the middleman, he never once said or hinted that if buyer and
seller sold directly to each other there would be no profit. He never said anything about each
buyer and seller getting things for free, he simply talked about cutting out the middleman.
In a sense if you cut out the middleman your profits would go down, but there would always
be profit. The seller sets his or her own price whether he or she is selling directly to the
buyer or the middleman there is always profit to be made. The seller is not going to give
something away to the buyer for free, they will always try to make some sort of a profit. So I
would have to agree that Marx is trying to say the capitalist profits are middleman’s profits,
but I do not think in the least that he is telling us that if you cut out the middleman and sell
directly to the buyer there is no profit to be made, there is always some sort of profit to be
made. Profit does not always come in the form of currency and that is something you have
to think about when you are talking about making a profit, profit comes in many other forms
than currency.
Message [481] referenced by [495]. Next Message by Ande is [522].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 193
[495] Hans: Do the means of production create value? Ande’s answer “yes” to the first
half of the question in [481] is based on a misunderstanding. Ande takes Marx’s illustrations
too literally. Marx enlivens his theoretical development by imaginary dialoges between
capitalists and other commodity traders, in order to get the point across that there is nothing
in the circulation process itself which could give rise to capitalist profits. The source of these
profits must therefore be found elsewhere, not in circulation.
During his answer, Ande says the following about profits:
“The seller is not going to give something away to the buyer for free, they
will always try to make some sort of a profit.”
This is similar to Marx’s starting point in chapters 4, 5, and 6: in our society, businesses
are successfully going through the cycle M-C-M’ which gives them profit. And this profit
is not due to overcharging, on the contrary, this profit is part of the value of the output. Not
taking the profit would amount to giving the buyer something for free.
Marx considers this a riddle, because he is wondering: if it is true that value comes from
labor, then commodity-producing labor should be the only way to make an income. Where
does the profit come from?
Ande does not present it as a riddle, presumably because he has the explanation of mainstream
economics in mind. In this explanation, labor is not the only source of value, but all
factors of production create value. The profit is that part of the value created by the factors
of production owned by the capitalist.
Marx does not buy this explanation, and I’d like to explain here why. What do the nonlabor
factors of production consist of? Nature and produced means of production. Let’s look
at them one by one.
Nature supplies services without charging for them. If someone charges for natural services,
they use their control of nature as a means to appropriate the labor of others. They
cannot justify it by saying that nature is necessary for the production of use-values. Value is
a social relation, and nature is not part of society. Nature simply cannot and does not create
value.
Produced means of production, such as machines, contain labor. This labor was rewarded
when the machine was bought. Why should this machine keep getting rewards? According
to the labor theory of value, machines transfer their own value to the product, but do not
create additional value.
In summary, labor is the only source of value because labor costs are the only costs which
society has to bear; everything else is free. I already said this [62].
This is why Marx devotes three chapters to explaining where the profits in M-C-M’ come
from. Marx’s explanation of profits is that the laborer does not get a full equivalent of the
value they produce during the day, but they get less. They get full value of their labor-power,
which is the commodity they sell the capitalists. This value is a reimbursement for the
reproduction cost of themselves and their labor-power. But this reproduction cost is much
less than the value produced during the day. They are forced to sell their labor-power, instead

194 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
of benefitting from the value this labor-power produces, because they are cut off from the
means of production.
This is the core of Marx’s theory of profits. Marx says here that behind the egalitarian
exchange of commodities lurks a very in-egalitarian and unjust class relationship. Workers
do not see this injustice because they are not aware of how much value their own labor
produces. They think part of the value which they themselves produce comes not from
themselves but comes from the machines.
Machines play only one part in this: the fact that these machines belong to the capitalists
instead of being democratically controlled by the workers allows the capitalists to appropriate
for themselves part of the value produced by the workers’ labor.
Message [495] referenced by [Answer:3], [2008fa:144], and [2008fa:748]. Next Message by Hans is [496].
Exam Question 474 is 307 in 1998WI, 341 in 2000fa, 359 in 2001fa, 391 in 2002fa, 405
in 2003fa, 454 in 2004fa, 431 in 2005fa, 463 in 2007SP, 467 in 2007fa, 477 in 2008fa,
549 in 2011fa, and 573 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 474 Is exchange (direct barter) a transaction in which both sides gain more
than they give up?
[476] Andy: Marx starts off answering this question giving an example of money saying
that if you “make change” (exchange dollar bills for smaller bills or coins), you dont think
you have different amounts of money, it is the same money in different form. Then he goes
on to explain that if you go on to buy something with your money, you no longer have the
money but you still have the same value just a different form, and this form does not change
the quantity of your value. So Marx draws a conclusion from all of this saying that the lesson
to be drawn from this is that circulation cannot be the source of value. Meaning that when
use-values are exchanged both buyer and seller may possibly gain something, but not in the
case of exchange-values. Because Marx believes that “where there is equality there is no
gain”, and therefore the exchange of commodities are exchange of equivalents, and it is not
a method of increasing value.
Hans: I am not sure you noticed that this is not a homework question but a designated exam question. In the exam,
you should give a reasonably short answer, for instance: “In terms of use-values, both parties gain, but in terms
of exchange-values, it is a zero sum game: one gains what the other loses.” If you formulate it this way, you are
not making the assumption that equivalents are exchanged. My [2005fa:1791] explains why this is an important
question.
Message [476] referenced by [566] and [574]. Next Message by Andy is [542].
[566] Bmellor: Exchange is equivalent. Andy [476] is correct in his statement a quicker
and more precise answer... In its pure form the exchange of commodities is an exchange
of equivalents and thus not a method of increasing value. So the answer would be no, the
exchange is equivalent.
Message [566] referenced by [567]. Next Message by Bmellor is [614].
[567] Hans: Both sides of the answer are needed. Bmellor’s answer [566] is incomplete.
A complete answer must distinguish between gains of value and gains of use-value. In terms
of value, exchange is a zero-sum game, i.e., one gains what the other loses. In terms of
use-value, both sides gain.
Message [567] referenced by [574]. Next Message by Hans is [568].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 195
[573] FacistFrank: it would make a lot of sense to me that the exchange is either equal
or close to equal, the point is that the traders of the goods think they are equal in real value,
which means they are close in real congealed labor content, or there is some kind of coercion,
or the deal is being forced to occur. In modern non Marxian economics, there is a condition
that is set for theoretical exercises that assumes conditions are ideal, i’m assuming that the
same thing is happening here, it would be far too confusing if it wasn’t.
but anyways like Hans says, in Marxian economics the labor values of the goods exchanged
are equal in perfect conditions, but the use values are drastically different, because
it would be absurd to exchange two exact use values. i’m also assuming that the traders each
leave with better use values than they entered in with, so the trade is overall not equal, but
both people gain, albeit from use values only.
Message [573] referenced by [574]. Next Message by FacistFrank is [679].
[574] Hans: Have it your way. I made it abundantly clear how I personally would
answer this, for instance in [567] or my notes to Andy’s [476] or in many submissions in
earlier Semesters such as [2004fa:429]. But others would express it in other words, and
FacistFrank’s [573] is definitely in the range of answers I consider correct. He gets full
credit for it. I appreciate that he does not just repeat but gives an explanation that makes
sense to himself and conforms to his thinking. This is the right way to learn things, and it is
instructive for others too.
Next Message by Hans is [578].
[575] Raynold: I would agree with Marx that “where there is equality there is no gain.”
Meaning that there is no profit made from an equal exchange. An exchange should not be
a transaction in which both sides gain more than they give up, it should be equivalent. I
understand it best with the example of the dollar. If a hundred dollar bill was exchanged for
change in lower bills and coins, the amount of money would be exactly the same. Now if
that hundred dollars was spent on buying a commodity, then you no longer have the hundred
dollars but you have something worth the same value only in different form. Because the
exchange was money for a product, both buyer and seller’s use-value may catch a gain but
this is not the case for exchange-value. Nothing is gained or lost for exchange value which
therefore makes the exchange equivalent.
Hans: This is also a right answer. You are emphasizing that no new exchange-value is created in the exchange, but
you are also mentioning that in terms of use-value, both paries gain.
Next Message by Raynold is [710].
[583] Mick: graded B Depends what the ‘gain’ is. Obviously barter takes place because
the two parties involved conclude that their subjective situations will improve in terms of
utility from the transaction. So yes there is a gain, but is it not empirical. It is a subjective
gain....a squirt of dopamine in the brain (utility). A value gain though, like inertia, cannot
be created. Any perceived gain would be purely synthetic, and therefore a delusion. In this
light, value, like matter, exists and cannot be created or destroyed.
Message [583] referenced by [586]. Next Message by Mick is [614].
[586] Hans: Use-value is More Than Dopamine. Mick [583] says that the gain in usevalues
is only imagined, it is only a chemical in the brain but cannot be measured empirically.
This forgets that the dopamine in the brain is the reaction to a real improvement of the
situation. It is not just imagination but a real gain if those hungry get food, and if also

196 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
otherwise the products are transferred from their point of production to those who need
them. In this respect, the exchange process is indeed a real gain for all involved.
Message [586] referenced by [604]. Next Message by Hans is [596].
[604] Hans: Why Use-Value and Exchange-Value Must Be Distinguished. Someone
wrote in the exam:
Exchange is a transaction in which both sides feel they gained more than
they gave up. If this were not the case, then neither party would be willing
to exchange products. A person would not barter for a product that they felt
was worth less than what they were giving up.
This argument shows how easy it is to slip into fallacies if one fails to distinguish usevalue
and exchange-value. People make exchanges because exchanges move the use-values
to the place where they are needed. I.e., in terms of use-values there is a gain. The increased
utility which people feel is a reflection of this, as I said in [586]. But such a gain does not
mean the value of the goods has increased. If you go to a money changer to change a five
into four ones and four quarters, then you don’t think the four ones and four quarters are
worth more than the five. You think it is worth the same, but in a more useful form.
If one does not distinguish between use-value and exchange-value (or the value inherent
in commodities which guides their exchange-value), but muddles them together in some unspecified
“worth,” then one comes to the conclusion that the exchange process is the source
of worth. This makes is more difficult to see that by just moving things around one does
not produce any additional value, and that the value (not just use-value) which the capitalists
pull out of the sphere of exchange must have been put in by someone – namely by the
laborers producing more value than they get in their wages.
My collection of Marx’s bumper stickers, started in [2007SP:387], just got bigger: Marx
also had a bumper sticker saying “use-value and exchange-value must be distinguished at all
times.”
Message [604] referenced by [612] and [2008fa:906]. Next Message by Hans is [620].
[612] SnatchimusMaximus: Can the capitalist be blamed for grape gatorade? That is
my question/response regarding the following passage in [604]
If one does not distinguish between use-value and exchange-value (or the
value inherent in commodities which guides their exchange-value), but
muddles them together in some unspecified “worth,” then one comes to the
conclusion that the exchange process is the source of worth. This makes is
more difficult to see that by just moving things around one does not produce
any additional value, and that the value (not just use-value) which the capitalists
pull out of the sphere of exchange must have been put in by someone
– namely by the laborers producing more value than they get in their wages.
For the first time this semester I can half-heartedly side with the capitalist. To illustrate
I will cite a recent trek through Guatemala. After days of traveling through El Salvador on
countless chicken buses, I found myself in Guatemala City at the transfer station to Coban.
My time in Guatemala was limited so I didn’t want to miss my ride. Upon my arrival at

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 197
the transfer station I barely had enough time to purchase a ticket and board the next bus.
I arrived in Coban, the next transfer station, after six hours of heat and no water. My final
destination was Semuc Champey and upon arrival in Coban, I discovered that the last Combi
van was departing immediately. My throat was parched and my bladder was bursting. I only
had enough time to satisfy one of my body’s requests. I chose to find a secluded ally rather
than a bottle of water. I felt as though I had made a wise decision as the Combi soon turned
onto a washboard-riddled road that vibrated my soul to its very core. After seven hours of
traversing high-mountain passes, I arrived at my final location- Semuc Champey.
It had been over twelve hours since any source of hydration had graced my mouth. My
eyes searched the thick darkness for any flickering light that indicated the presence of a
local tienda. I saw a shop owner closing his doors the ensuing surge of adrenaline quickly
overpowered my throat’s cries for help. I grabbed the door out of the shop owners hands
and nearly ripped it from its hinges. Immediately he began spitting profanity at me in his
native tongue of Kakchiquel. Though I could not understand him, his intentions were clear.
I reached into my pocket and pulled out the first bill that met my hands. It was a 50 quetzal
bill, the equivalent of $7.00 US. I threw the bill to the man and grabbed the first fluid that
befell upon my aching eyes. It was a grape gatorade. I downed half of it as quickly as I
could swallow. I then returned to the man expecting my change. He informed me, this time
in Spanish, that I would receive no change because each gatorade cost 100 quetzal. Not
wanting to incite a riot in the tops of the Guatemalan mountains, I smiled, thanked him for
the beverage, and bid him buenos noches.
After my thirst was quenched and buyers remorse set in, I became upset. How could he
take advantage of a foreigner in strange lands that was dying of dehydration? How could he
charge me $7.00 for a gatorade when my room for the night was only $2.50? Unfortunately,
this tienda was the only tienda in the village and I could not take out my aggressions by
boycotting his products. While in the village I became familiar with the tienda owner’s
family and I was overwhelmed by their friendship. Consequently my animosity subsided.
After three days I returned to Guatemala City to end my journey.
As I was exiting the bus from Semuc Champey I noticed a familiar face – it was the tienda
owner’s wife. She was returning to her village from the big city and was bringing supplies
for resale at her tienda. She had several bags in her hand and in the basket on top of her head
she was carrying two-dozen grape gatorades. She beamed a smile from ear to ear and said
“You Gringos sure like grape gatorade!”
I have always found the story humorous but now I wonder–was that exploitation? Certainly
not all of the 50 quetzals that I had paid for my grape gatorade was entirely profit.
It had cost 100 quetzals to travel from Guatemala City to Semuc Champey, 75 cents per
gatorade, and then I factored 12 hours travel time into the equation. The total price that the
tienda owner paid for each gatorade is still unknown.
I do not think this exploitation however. Though the tienda owners had merely “moved
things around,” they had undoubtedly added a significant value to the gatorade. But had they
created enough value to justify charging $7.00 for a gatorade in Guatemala? I hardly doubt
that. So, in a long awaited conclusion, I can only state that not all of the capitalist’s profits

198 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
come from exploitation. Good fortune may shine down on the capitalist, though he may
possibly be the most unworthy candidate.
Additionally, I would like to ask what Marx would call this so called “good fortune.” Any
takers? Hans, I know you have a clever comment. Good night.
Message [612] referenced by [620]. First Message by SnatchimusMaximus is [21].
[620] Hans: Gatorade in Guatemala. In response to SnatchimusMaximus’s [612] I’d
like to say: don’t look at things in isolation but consider the circumstances. You didn’t just
buy gatorade in a store, you got it in the middle of the night after the store was closed. As
you are telling it, it was not exactly a voluntary transaction on the part of the seller. No
wonder he didn’t feel obligated to give you change.
Also don’t forget that you were an American tourist in an impoverished country. Of
course people will sell you things above their values. They probably consider it just as getting
back a little bit of the damage which the US has been doing to their countries. We have
to be very gracious about this, as the relative beneficiaries of a very unjust social relation.
Besides, I am not certain whether the shopkeeper should really be called a “capitalist.”
He apparently put in long hours himself. Did he employ anybody in his shop besides his
family?
Message [620] referenced by [624] and [656]. Next Message by Hans is [646].
[624] Nstew: Happiness in Guatemala. Why is it that you say in [620] the United States
is doing damage to their country when we are the top importers from their country? We are
providing many people in their country with jobs by importing their products. I met with
Ambassador from Guatemala when he was in Utah last year and he was very happy with
everything the U.S. was importing from them. I work for an importing company and the
reason he visited us was to inform us of the work being done in Guatemala and trying to
provide the people of his country with more opportunities for trade with the U.S.
Although the shop keeper may not be a capitalist because he is not employing anyone
other than his family. The question is if he had the resources and the opportunity to open up
a chain of shops across the country of Guatemala and provide many people in his country
with income and jobs and also make money for himself. Then he would be considered a
‘capitalist’ but it seems he would only be doing more good so what would be with that?
Message [624] referenced by [656]. Next Message by Nstew is [647].
[656] Hans: Genocide in Guatemala. Nstew asked in [624]:
Why is it that you say in [620] the United States is doing damage to their
country when we are the top importers from their country?
If the US sinned in Latin America, Guatemala is probably one of the worst sins. Under
Eisenhower in 1954, the CIA overthrew the freely elected government of Jacobo Arbenz.
One of the reasons was that some of the land owned by United Fruit Company, now Chiquita,
was nationalized with compensation. In the 1980s, the Guatemala military junta waged a
campaign of brutal genocide against the indigenous population. This made Guatemala an
international pariah state, but the US continued to support it. In 1999, U.S. president Bill
Clinton stated that the United States was wrong to have provided support to Guatemalan
military forces that took part in the brutal civilian killings.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 199
If you want to know more about these things you should attend the classes by my colleagues
Ken Jameson or Matias Vernengo.
Hans: Someone (Ken Jameson?) just slipped a newspaper article under my door, saying that on January 14, 2008
Alvaro Colom was sworn in as Guatemala’s first leftist president since Jacobo Arbenz.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/01/14/america/LA-GEN-Guatemala-Inauguration.php
Next Message by Hans is [683].
Question 475 is 432 in 2005fa, 478 in 2008fa, 497 in 2009fa, and 550 in 2011fa:
Question 475 Show exactly where Condillac, in the above quote, conflates use-value and
exchange-value.
[477] Rmuscolino: Condillac conflates use-value and exchange-value by stating that we
don’t exactly give value for value and that we actually give less for a greater value. That
makes sense for use-value because we all have different preferences and have a different
use-value than someone else may have. He makes the mistake of confusing the two concepts
by saying, “each of the two contracting parties in every case gives a less for a greater value.”
This is a mistake because each individual gets a different use out of each commodity so
everyone has different preferences and tastes. So by exchanging these two commodities, its
not the fact that one person is giving less for more because the the other person would be
receiving just as much since they feel as though they are giving less for more as well.
Next Message by Rmuscolino is [603].
Question 476 is 392 in 2002fa, 406 in 2003fa, 456 in 2004fa, and 575 in 2012fa:
Question 476 In what way does the following remark poke fun at Condillac? “If both the
persons who exchange receive more in return for an equal amount, and part with less in
return for an equal amount, then they both get the same.”
[468] Alex: graded B– Poking Fun at Condillac. Condillac has some interesting thoughts,
but one has to wonder what exactly his influence is. Value is certainly a center point for
Marx, whether it be use or exchange. These ideas have very specific meanings and intuitions.
Condillac on the other hand is very confused on his interpretations. His use value is
more acurately described as a “need” value.
One of course will not part with something they need, according to Condillac. As such
the value of a commodity is very subjective to the possessor. As such, one will only part
with those things that are of lesser value to get something that is of greater value. Thus the
statement “if both the persons who exchange receive more in return for an equal amount and
part with less in return for an eual amout, then they both get the same.” This statement the
humor in what Condillac’s argument. But the statement is nevertheless thought provoking
as it relates to Condillac.
What is “superflous” and what is “necessary” and how much do they actually play into
value. Moreover how much can subjectivity play a role in value at all? Condillac’s arguments
are still alive today as some economists strive to prove that commodities are worth
more to some than others. The next section talks about this relationship between consumers
and producers. This argument also offers interesting insights into marginal utility.

200 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Though Condillac offers some interesting suggestions, it is important to be able to see all
sides of value.
Hans: Where I expected a detailed explanation why the sentence quoted in the question is a tease, all I get is the
malformed sentence: “This statement the humor in what Condillac’s argument.” Can you run that by me again?
My own “Condillac for dummies” is in [2002fa:192].
Next Message by Alex is [497].
[478] JPeel: content A– form 95% The following remark “if both persons who exchange
receive more in return for an equal amount, and part with less in return for an equal amount,
then they both get the same,” pokes fun at Condillac because Condillac says that each person
who is exchanging the commodity is giving less than what they receive. This can’t be true
because both parties are receiving more than what they are giving so the outcome is equal
because each person’s use-value is different but the exchange value is the same. For example,
one person may exchange a hair straightener for a curling iron because they already have
straight hair and will get no use from a straightener. On the other hand, the person receiving
the hair straightener has curly hair and will benefit from this commodity. So their use-values
are very different but the exchange value for the straightener versus the curling iron are the
same.
Message [478] referenced by [480]. Next Message by JPeel is [498].
[480] Hans: Immanent Critique. Condillac says that everybody who is exchanging
commodities is giving less than what they receive. JPeel [478] writes: this can’t be true
because exchange-values are equal, the traders only gain regarding the use-values they have
for the commodity (and then JPeel gives a good intuitive illustration of this).
Condillac’s friend Le Trosne criticizes Condillac in a fundamentally different way than
JPeel, namely, he makes a so-called immanent critique. JPeel says that theory A is wrong
because it differs from theory B which is the right theory. This is not an immanent but
an external critique. An immanent critique takes a careful look at theory A and draws out
implications which show that A cannot be right.
Le Trosne does not exactly come to the conclusion that Condillac’s theory cannot be
right, but he shows that Condillac’s theory implies its own opposite. How so? Let’s do it in
a dialogue.
Condillac: Everybody who is exchanging commodities is giving less than what they receive.
Le Trosne: I am with you. And assume the difference between what they give and what
they receive is equal for everybody. Doesn’t that mean that everybody is getting the same in
the exchange, namely, that equal difference?
Marx calls this a “tease” or “poking fun” because he as a Hegelian is used to it that
everything contains its opposite. Just as the same picture
http://www.mcescher.com/Gallery/switz-bmp/LW306.jpg
shows fish if you look at it one way, and flying birds if you look at it in a different way, so
the exchange is one in which everybody gains if you look at it one way, and where everybody
has an equal outcome if you look at it in a different way. This is nothing extraordinary, a
trained Hegelian can do this trick with everything. But if Le Trosne tells his friend Condillac,

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 201
“your big controversial theory that everybody gets more in the exchange than they give up
really means that everybody gets the same in the exchange,” this is like sticking a needle
into a big baloon.
Next Message by Hans is [482].
Question 477 is 434 in 2005fa, 480 in 2008fa, 499 in 2009fa, and 576 in 2012fa:
Question 477 What does Marx mean when he says “commodities are not paid for twice
over, once on account of their use-value, and a second time on account of their value”?
[479] Alcameron: When Marx says “commodities are not paid for twice over, once on
account of their use-value, and a second time on account of their value..” he is referring to
the fact that an exchange is an event in the string of production. It is only one event of many
that must take place. First you can look at the inverse to see what Marx is saying and why
it makes sense. When a consumer pays for a product, the majority of the time, in a perfect
market, they will pay more than the actual cost to make that product, this is where profit
comes in for companies. The consumer is willing to pay more for that product than the cost
of its materials because they may not possess the means to produce it, or the use-value for
them is greater than or equal to the price they are paying. They walk away happy and have
“paid” for the commodity. Now if we look at the transaction in reverse, the seller of the
product has raw materials that they want to sell. They would much rather have the selling
price of the product in cash than have the raw materials. The seller is willing to generally
sell the item for any amount more than the cost of their materials, so in a sense they can
“pay” for the production as well by turning their product into cash. If this were the case it
would be an endless process of production and “paying” for items. Logic says though, like
Marx stated, that the product is not paid for twice over. The transaction is an event in a series
of many and only goes one direction, with one party “paying” for the commodity.
Message [479] referenced by [482]. Next Message by Alcameron is [509].
[482] Hans: Ooh you are so happy about this chair, can you pay me a little more?
Alcameron [479] approaches this question from the point of view of mainstream utility theory,
not Marx’s labor theory of value. While in Marxist theory, the buyer of a commodity
only pays for the value, not the use-value, in mainstream utility theory, he only pays for the
use-value, not the value.
In mainstream utility theory, a buyer pays $50 for a chair if he is happier with an extra
chair than with an extra $50 in his pocket. The labor going into the chair does not enter the
picture, the buyer probably does not even know it and it is never discussed in the transaction.
This is clearly a payment for use-value, not for value.
How does Marx come to the opposite conclusion that the $50 are paid for the value of
the chair and not for the use-value of owning the chair? Because he looks not only at the
consumer making the transaction on the market, but also at the producers whose production
decisions are guided by the market outcomes. If the producers see that chairs can be sold
on the market at a better price per hour of labor input than say cabbage, then they will reallocate
labor from the production of cabbage to the production of chairs. The increased
supply will lower the price of chairs and raise the price of cabbage, say chairs are now $45
a piece.

202 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Those who would have bought chairs at $50 a piece will be even happier to get them at
$45 a piece, and some of those for whom $50 is too much money for a chair will happily
buy chairs at $45. The lower the price, the more happiness there is all around. But the
fact alone that at each price you are looking at a different population of happy chair buyers
(and unhappy cabbage eaters), should tell you that prices are not driven by the happiness of
the consumers at all. After production has adjusted to market demand, the happiness of the
consumers only determines the quantity of chairs produced. The long-run price of chairs is
determined by labor input.
Therefore, if a consumer were to say, as in [479], “I am willing to pay $50 for the chair
although I know that the cost of this chair to the manufacturer is only $30, because I am
happier with an extra chair than with the $50 in my pocket,” then Marx would give the
following reply:
Marx: I am glad this purchase makes you happy. This is as it should be, since the market
has the social function to transfer the products to those consumers who need them. But don’t
jump to the conclusion that the chair’s price is determined by your happiness. If the seller,
who sees the smile on your face, is trying to get an extra $5 happiness premium out of you,
you are perfectly justified to refuse to pay this extra amount. Your $50 did not pay for your
happiness, but these $50 were the fair equivalent of the labor society had to put into this
chair. You paid full value for the chair, you don’t owe anybody anything. What you do with
the chair, and how happy you are with it, is entirely your private affair.
Next Message by Hans is [495].
[726] Paul: Marx means that when you pay for a commodity you are not paying for its
use-value. The use-value of a commodity is completely dependent on the person buying
it. If a certain commodity is especially useful for a given person he should not have to pay
more than someone for which the commodity only provides moderate usefulness. When
you are paying for a commodity you are paying for the labor that went into producing that
commodity. If you were to pay more than the cost of the labor based on how much use the
commodity is to you then you would indeed being paying twice over.
Hans: The value of a commodity does not come from the cost of the labor but from the labor itself. The cost to the
capitalist of the labor, i.e., the wage paid, is much lower than the value created by that labor.
Next Message by Paul is [775].
[734] Allen: Commodities are not paid twice over because they can be either purchased
for their use-value or for their value. If they are purchased for their use-value the item will
be used for what it was made for. Then the item could be sold for what it’s worth in order
to purchase another commodity, for example a car. It is bought to be used to take you place
to place then sold to purchase another (C-M-C). Commodities can also be bought for their
value then sold at a higher price it was bought for to another person that wants to buy the
commodity for its use-value.
Hans: If you mean to say that the buyer sometimes pay for the use-value and sometimes for the value, Marx would
disagree. In his paradigm, you always only pay for the value.
Next Message by Allen is [783].
[742] Brody: When Marx states that commodities are not paid for twice over he is referring
to the fact that buyers do not pay for the use-value that they will derive from the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 203
commodity. A buyer must only pay for the labor-value and therefore the value of a commodity.
The use-value that the buyer gains can not be seen as added value or surplus value
of the commodity; use-value is the buyer’s concern and is only realized after he/she has
taken possession of the commodity.
Next Message by Brody is [760].
[757] Wasatch: As Hans explains in the handbook on page 357, the labor theory of value
points out that the price of a commodity does not depend on its use-value but on its value.
As I see it, the consumer looks at both the use-value and the value of the commodity, but
the producer of the commodity is only concerned with the value (exchange value). Because
the capitalist (producer) is only concerned with the value of the commodity any use-value is
added on and experienced by the consumer. The producer could care less if you get more or
less use-value out of the commodity and is not rewarded or in any way affected by it. So the
consumer only pays once for the commodity because the consumer can’t pay for something
that the producer is not selling (use-value).
Hans: The producer is affected by it how much use-value the consumer gets from the commodity: this will determine
the demand for the commodity. But Marx says in the long run, demand only determines the quantities
produced, not the price.
Next Message by Wasatch is [778].
Question 498 is 311 in 1997ut, 321 in 1998WI, 322 in 1999SP, 377 in 2001fa, 425 in
2003fa, 453 in 2005fa, 485 in 2007SP, 491 in 2007fa, 501 in 2008fa, and 524 in 2009fa:
Question 498 One of the conditions under which the money owner can purchase laborpower
in order to do M −C − M ′ is, according to Marx, that the labor-power must be sold
by the worker him- or herself. Why this latter requirement?
[493] Rey: graded A The Selling of Labor Power. When considering why it is necessary
that labor power must be sold at the discretion of the laborer, we must first examine the
unique ability labor has to create surplus value. In the process of M-C-M it is only in the
consumption of a commodity, or C phase, that can bring additional value to the money
commodity. Both flanks of the M-C-M equation are a mere conversion of form. Thus
in order to create surplus value money must be converted to a commodity that has a usevalue
that as Marx says, “possesses the peculiar property of being a source of value, whose
actual consumptions is therefore itself an objectification of labor, hence a creation of value.”
Marx goes on to identify this commodity as labor-power. By definition labor power is,
“the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in the physical body, the
living personality, of a human being, capabilities which he has sets in motion whenever
he produces a use-value of any kind.” Put simply when one invest money in labor power,
this labor power brings added value as it perpetuates production. Now in considering the
original question, namely why is it necessary for labor power to be sold at the discretion
of the laborer? The fundamental reason Marx gives is, “In and for itself, the exchange
of commodities requires that there be no other relations of dependence than those resulting
form its own nature.” A commodity doesn’t become a true commodity until it becomes “free”
from all other dependency. Thus in order for labor to even be considered as a commodity,
it must be free from all other ties. Essentially in order for a laborer to sell his labor as a
commodity he must be independent and in full possession of himself, or else the laborer

204 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
would not have the natural right to sell his labor. Once the laborer establishes himself as
independent and free to sell his labor, M-C-M can take place in its truest form, if not capital
cannot as Hans states, “fully develop.”
Message [493] referenced by [2008fa:761] and [2009fa:981]. Next Message by Rey is [500].
Question 499 is 249 in 1997WI, 313 in 1997ut, 323 in 1999SP, 357 in 2000fa, 378 in
2001fa, 411 in 2002fa, 427 in 2003fa, 477 in 2004fa, 454 in 2005fa, 486 in 2007SP, 492
in 2007fa, 502 in 2008fa, 525 in 2009fa, 578 in 2011fa, and 604 in 2012fa:
Question 499 Why are the conditions for terminating employment regulated by law instead
of being left to the free market? Does this mean that the state protects the workers against
the capitalists?
[488] Kevin: graded A Selling yourself for money. The conditions for terminating employment
are regulated by law because it would be possible in a completely free labor market
for a human to sell all his labor-power indefinitely. This would lead to nothing more than
total enslavement. At this point, the laborer himself would no longer be the owner of his
own and only commodity (labor) but instead would be a commodity (a slave).
In a market completely free of government intervention there would be no way to stop
(without using alternative means) the trade of the human being. The indefinitely sold laborpower
(the person or slave themselves) would then be able to be traded just as any other
commodity. This, however, does not necessarily mean that the state protects the worker
against the capitalist, it just means that it keeps the worker from being completely enslaved.
According to Hans, “the capitalist state does not have the purpose to ‘protect the worker
from exploitation’. . . the state is, rather, interested in a smooth functioning of exploitation.”
[2002fa:209]
Message [488] referenced by [489], [497], [499], [501], and [504]. Next Message by Kevin is [490].
[489] Dentist: can you choose to be a slave? The discussions around this question always
seem to revolve around the inevitable result of slavery, and as Kevin’s response [488] has
taken us there, I will try to build upon it for a moment.
Slavery relies upon a compulsory means for production, whereas capitalism relies on
voluntary action. If then, slavery is all about compulsion, how and why would anyone
WILLINGY become a slave, as is the case we are considering (according to the conditions
laid out in 6.2)? This makes no sense, why would one willingly subject oneself to the
demands of another? Especially when we are “rational”, and “behave in our best interests!”
Deception, I wonder?
All our lives we are told of the “American dream.” The dream whereby any person, from
any status can have anything they desire so long as they work hard, and persevere; that
through their best efforts they will possess their own surpluses of value. This ideological
dream seems quite the convenient motivational tactic for an economic system whose very
life-blood is surplus-value, does it not!?
These are just a few thoughts I had in reading the previous discussions in relation to Kevin
[488]’s introduction to our own. In answering the specific question posed I struggled a bit,
but I have gathered this so far. Capital is our economic system; it is the means upon which

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 205
we depend in order to derive our sustenance. The problem however is the clashing of its
social foundation. Capital is forever locked in “a concealed civil war between the capitalist
class and the working class,” to which there is no real solution other than destruction. Our
government is acting as the arbitrator between both forces, and thus these laws are passed to
protect each from the other. In this way it seems as if the government is trying to maintain
some sort of artificial equilibrium.
To borrow the later half of Hans’s quotation, “. . . the state is, rather, interested in a smooth
functioning of exploitation.” [2002fa:209]
Message [489] referenced by [490], [499], and [501]. Next Message by Dentist is [500].
[490] Kevin: graded as part of [488] Would you know if you were a slave? I believe
Dentist [489] brings forward a number of excellent points as well as creates new questions.
He says, “how and why would anyone willingly become a slave?” I think he makes an
excellent point that no one would willingly become a slave. We could say that no one really
sells themselves as slaves, but haven’t we all sold ourselves and are slaves to the idea of
capitalism?
We all struggle and work relentlessly for a vision of riches and wealth. We slave away for
a myth of greater opportunities that we cannot achieve. Not wanting to sound metaphorical,
but haven’t we become slaves to the idea that through our work we can become the capitalist
we work so hard to serve? Do we have a choice?
Message [490] referenced by [501]. Next Message by Kevin is [500].
[497] Alex: graded A Selling Yourself For Money. Kevin brings up some very interesting
discussion points [488] which can bring a feeling of deflation to any student looking forward
to a job after college. Hans always mentions that this class may be “more of a hindrance
than a help to you (students) professionally.” That being said it is comments like Kevin’s
that make this class valuable. Hopefully when students do get into the real world they will
understand the larger system that they belong to. A large corporation is not just a business
but it demands more from its employees. You give up more than just your time for your job.
The deeper tones illustrated by Kevin demand more time that even a full length semester
class could give. The regulation of government and the role of government is the most
important question a person can ask themselves politically. In fact this question really does
define one’s political beliefs. I don’t believe there is one blanket answer, but there are many
facets to each political position as it relates to government. As Kevin illustrates, our economy
is not truly free market and I agree with him that the consequences of a true free market
economy would be disastrous for the employee.
So if it is a good thing that the government watch out for the worker, why is government
intervention so feared? It is because of the capitalist, and their control on the government.
Many times government will make movements to better the workplace or other environments,
and lobbyists for the corporations will not allow it. If one chooses to politically to
believe that strong government is good, then they must also understand that what we have
is a government that chooses not to act. The government chooses not to act because of the
capitalist, even if the resulting action may be in the general benefit of all.

206 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
So when one decides where they stand politically they must understand the true consequences
of their decisions. It is not enough just to say you feel one way over another
is correct, you must act to make a difference or you are as an ineffective government. It
all comes back to that most basic question, “what is the most effective and proper role of
government, and how does that affect the worker.”
Message [497] referenced by [501]. Next Message by Alex is [503].
[499] Brandon: graded B+ Labor-Power=Commodity=Slave? I think not. Kevin says
in [488] that it is necessary for government to regulate the terms and conditions by which
an employee, worker, may be terminated by employer because, if left up to the free market,
workers will be bought and sold as slaves. He states that when the worker sells his* labor (a
commodity), he is selling himself to the employer. However, Marx states that the commodity
of labor and the exchange that exists between the worker and the employer is a buyer/seller
relationship. This relationship works as sort of a ‘buy on credit’ example, in which the
worker sells his commodity, labor, to the capitalist without immediate payment. Payment
is received under the terms of the mutual contract between the two parties; specifying time
and production. Once the production is completed, creating a new commodity for sale by
the capitalist, then payment is made to the worker.
“In every country in which the capitalist mode of production reigns, it is
the custom not to pay for labour-power before it has been exercised for
the period fixed by the contract, as for example, the end of each week. In
all cases, therefore, the use-value of the labour-power is advanced to the
capitalist: the labourer allows the buyer to consume it before he receives
payment of the price; he everywhere gives credit to the capitalist.” (Marx)
Does this mean that the worker, given the mutual contract, is free from exploitation. By
all means, no. Does this mean that the capitalist may never pay the worker for his labor and
time spent on production? No. However, it does illustrate that the worker, who freely entered
the contract, has the freedom to leave and seek another buyer for his labor. The condition
could arise, in a crippled state, whereby capitalist would ‘agree’ to hire labor under similar
contract terms and never pay the worker for his service and no other alternative condition
is available for the worker. The role of government, in a society, is to protect the rights of
individuals from these exploitations of others. One cannot expect every person in a society
to honestly and truthfully uphold their responsibilities that they have agreed to in a contract.
The implementation of governmental laws that regulate these conditions of contract are
necessary to protect both parties from breach. The case may also be, that a worker offers
to sell his labor but fails to perform his duties required under contract. Dentist touched on
this in [489] by saying “Our government is acting as the arbitrator between both forces, and
thus these laws are passed to protect each from the other. In this way it seems as if the
government is trying to maintain some sort of artificial equilibrium.” I agree but more to the
extent that government is acting as the legal enforcement that either party can appeal to in
any case that they may feel breach has occured.
At the end of 6, Marx states:

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 207
“This sphere that we are deserting, within whose boundaries the sale and
purchase of labour-power goes on, is in fact a very Eden of the innate rights
of man. There alone rule Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham. Freedom,
because both buyer and seller of a commodity, say of labour-power,
are constrained only by their own free will. They contract as free agents,
and the agreement they come to, is but the form in which they give legal expression
to their common will. Equality, because each enters into relation
with the other, as with a simple owner of commodities, and they exchange
equivalent for equivalent. Property, because each disposes only of what is
his own. And Bentham, because each looks only to himself.”
I believe this is a powerful statement that shows that unless there exists some form of
legal enforcement of such contracts, the very basic rights of individuals will growingly be
exploited by those above them. I do not believe that this slippery-slope condition would lead
to a slavery-based society, because, in my opinion, the worker holds the labor-power and
will refuse to ‘sell’ his commodity for zero beneficial gain.
*I use the terms “he/his” to describe the general third person. I am not trying to be
gender-specific, so try not to be offended. :)
Hans: Are you aware that Marx’s famous statement about freedom, equality, and Bentham is meant ironically?
Marx says here that the market, which seems so equitable, mediates a very one-sided exploitative relationship.
That’s why in the next paragraph only the capitalist smirks, while the worker timidly holds back, when the capitalist
leads his new employee to his workplace.
Message [499] referenced by [501]. Next Message by Brandon is [513].
[501] Hans: Wage Labor and Slavery. The first answer, Kevin’s [488], is what I would
consider “The Right Answer” to this question. But others disagree.
Dentist [489] and Brandon [499] object that workers would never sell themselves voluntarily
into slavery. Unfortunately, this is not just a hypothetical question but has some
history behind it. Marx, in a footnote to 270:1/o, gives examples where wage laborers were
so saddled with debt which they or their children have to pay off by labor that they were
practically slaves.
Kevin [490], when faced with Dentist’s objection, therefore gave up too quickly on this
point of actual slavery. But he gave an interesting reply, namely, that our belief in elusive
rewards which the system is not designed to provide turns us into metaphorical slaves.
This is a deep point, which no longer has to do with exploitation but with alienation—and
unlike exploitation, alienation is not mitigated by a comfortable wage. Alex [497] adds his
warning that a corporate job not only underpays but also requires from the employees the
kind of enthusiasm for your own exploitation which Kevin equates with slavery.
Brandon [499] takes issue with Kevin’s formulation that the laborer sells himself for
money. Brandon stresses that it is an equal buyer-seller relationship, and that the state is
necessary to protect both sides against breach of contract by the other side. A Marxist would
answer Brandon that equal legal treatment of two contenders who have huge differences in
power and resources is not even-handed but automatically favors the stronger party.
Message [501] referenced by [504]. Next Message by Hans is [502].
[504] Goethe: first hand experience. This is a response to [501]

208 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
I also agree to Kevin [488] in theory... (Disclaimer; I am not a law student or an expert,
I am just sick and tired of being sick and tired!) Most jobs are protected by law, but not
in Utah. We live in a right to work state i.e. we can be terminated for any reason and we
can leave a job as such. I am reminded of a philosophy taught in another class at the U.
“be slow to hire and quick to fire” the meaning of this was explained as: the best way to
run an efficient business is to take time to investigate prospective employees, and once it is
discovered that an employee is worthless, terminate them immediately!!!! This is where the
contradiction of right to work comes into play. To be terminated an employer must have
cause or face the possibility of paying unemployment. Employers will do a couple of things
to accomplish this goal.... They will put you on a disciplinary action program, give a set
of goals to reach, and make the goals unattainable. I have seen this before and experienced
it first hand... (I refused to let this system take advantage of me )... employers hope and
count on the fact that most people do not know their rights, and will eventually become fired
without compensation of unemployment insurance. This is a true form of slavery... you
work very hard to please Mr. Ass-Kiss manager only to find that in the end there was never
any intention of redemption. Here are some definitions of slavery...
Bondage: the state of being under the control of another person
The practice of owning slaves
Work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay
Brandon has a very interesting view about buyer-seller relationship...A strongly agree
with Hans... The state does not act in the interest of the workers and protect us from powergreedy
managers; they are looking out for the state and no one else. It has been brought up
time and time again “Capitalist owners use our labor for their profit.” There is no equality for
workers unless you are working for yourself, and then we are still at the mercy of corporate
powers exploiting our labor. An exception would be an enterprise that was profitable enough
to supply the needs of a good, yet not extravagant lifestyle.
On the outside it appears to many that the State is looking out for the worker, but the
State gains more by looking out for the employer... Hans talks about a “comfortable wage”
the character of money eliminates the possibility of ever achieving a comfortable wage... the
more we get the more we want...
Next Message by Goethe is [544].
Question 506 is 281 in 1996sp, 328 in 1998WI, 419 in 2002fa, 435 in 2003fa, 485 in
2004fa, 462 in 2005fa, 494 in 2007SP, 499 in 2007fa, 509 in 2008fa, 532 in 2009fa, 569
in 2010fa, and 611 in 2012fa:
Question 506 Which two sets of conditions must be satisfied for labor-power to be a commodity?
[492] Srichardson: graded A Labor as a commodity. The first condition that must be in
place to make labor-power a commodity is: the laborer must be able to sell his labor-power.
He/she must be able to be the one who makes the decision to sell his labor. He must not be
forced from an outside party, it has to be his own decision. The laborer must have the right

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 209
to be free to enter a contract and leave a contract, the buyer of the labor must be legally equal
to the seller of the labor and the labor must only be sold for a temporary amount of time.
The second condition is that the laborer is limited in that he/she can not produce a final
good that could be sold on the market. This is the reason that the laborer sells their labor;
they are dependent on the person who has the means of production.
Message [492] referenced by [494] and [496]. Next Message by Srichardson is [507].
[494] Papageorgio: satisfectellent. I was hoping to be the first to answer this question
but I was beaten to it in post [492]. Srichardson is right when she says the first condition
is that a laborer must be free to sell their labor power. The right to sell his/her labor power
and enter and leave contracts without coercion is very key to this question. I feel it is also
important to note the third party can not sell it for him/her. Srichardson pointed out the main
arguments quite nicely, 1. laborer must be able to sell the laborer power by himself without
third party, 2. Buyer and seller must be legally equally held, 3. The labor must only be sold
for periods of time. It is important I think though to also note that they must bring the labor
to the market for sale as well. It also is important to note as Hans posted in [2007fa:488]
that a laborer must have a right to enter into a wage labor contract and that serfs, slaves, and
children do not have this right.
The second condition I think can be worded better than Srichardson puts it though, maybe
as ‘the laborer must be separated and deprived of the means of production’. The laborer must
not have the opportunity to sell his or her labor, so they must sell the their labor power to
provide life for himself, to survive.
Message [494] referenced by [496] and [729]. Next Message by Papageorgio is [531].
[496] Hans: The Necessity to Use Strong Language. I have the impression Papageorgio
[494] was scrambling to say something that goes beyond Srichardson’s [492], which is
not easy because Srichardson gave an excellent summary of the argument. Papageorgio’s
strongest point is what he said about the second condition: Srichardson should have used
stronger language to express the outrage that the workers are deprived of control over the
means of production. The most important economic decision is the investment decision; it
should not be made in private corporate boardrooms but by a democratic process. This is
especially urgent nowadays when the corporations insist on continuing investments which
cause global warming.
On the News one often hears outrageous facts read in a bland voice, with an additional
sentence at the end that the person or entity committing these outrages denies any wrongdoing.
This is what journalists are taught to do in order to stay objective. But philosophers
have argued that this is in fact not objective at all. Here is a passage from Roy Bhaskar’s
Possibility of Naturalism. He is not the only one arguing this way, indeed the example about
Nazi rule is attributed to Isaiah Berlin:
Compare the following accounts of what happened in Germany under Nazi rule:
alpha ‘the country was depopulated’;
beta ‘millions of people died’;
gamma ‘millions of people were killed’;

210 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
delta ‘millions of people were massacred’.
All four statements are true. But delta is not only the most evaluative, it is also the best
(that is, the most precise and accurate) description of what actually happened. And note
that, in virtue of this, all but delta generate the wrong perlocutionary force. For to say of
someone that he died normally carries the presumption that he was not killed by human
agency. And to say that millions were killed does not imply that their deaths were part of a
single organized campaign of brutal killing, as those under Nazi rule were.
So far the Bhaskar quote. Instead of saying that there is global warming, maybe one
should say that life as we know it on the planet is being suffocated.
Next Message by Hans is [501].
[637] Jenn: graded A labor-power as a commodity. The first condition that must be
satisfied is that the seller must be free to sell their labor-power as a commodity. It must be
socially acceptable for a laborer to sell their labor-power as a period of time. Labor-power
would not be a commodity in a slave-labor society, where the “worker” does not have a
choice to sell their labor-power.
The second condition is that the laborer must be forced to sell their labor-power to provide
means of consistence for themselves. They must lack the means of production, rendering
them unable to use their own labor-power, and therefore resorting to the sale of their laborpower.
Next Message by Jenn is [638].
[665] Papageorgio: Resubmission Conditional. The two sets of conditions that need to
be satisfied for labor-power to be a commodity are
1. The laborer must be free to sell their labor power. The labor-power needs to be
independent in this regard. The ability to sell your own labor-power hour by hour contract
by contract is necessary for labpor-power to be a commodity. Slavery obviously does not fit
here as a third party cannot be involved. Children and slaves are left out of this not having
the right to enter in the wage labor market for themselves.
2. The laborer must be separated from and deprived of the means of production. The
laborer does not have the means of production so they must sell their labor-power to someone
else in order to produce something that can be sold on the market. My mind was blankin on
this part during the test which is dissapointing as I answered this previously in the class. But
the labor is dependent on someon else he must sell his labor-power and again this shows the
necessity of this condition for labor-power to be a commodity. This is also a key point Marx
felt should be fought against because capitalism robs us of a means of production and leaves
us reliant, instead of everyone being given access to the means of production.
Next Message by Papageorgio is [775].
[671] Scott: labor-power. Condition 1 – The possessor of the labor-value (the person
that has the labor-power) has to be willing to sell it as a commodity. The possessor of laborpower
can only sell his labor-power for a length of time, because if he was to sell in forever
he would become a slave to the capitalist. The laborer also must have the right to enter a
wage labor contract.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 211
Condition 2 – Because the laborer can’t sell the commodities that he puts his labor into,
he needs to be desperate to sell his labor-power.
Next Message by Scott is [772].
[729] Spawnblade: The two conditions that must be satisfied for labor-power to be a
commodity are as follows:
1) The laborer must input their labor freely and without forcible coercion. It must be
voluntary otherwise it would be more akin to slavery.
2) The laborer must not have access to the means of production. Or as Papageorgio [494]
states, “the laborer must be separated and deprived of the means of production.”
Hans: The laborer must also have the right to sell his labor-power.
Next Message by Spawnblade is [776].
[740] Dentist: The first condition that must be satisfied before labor-power can become a
commodity is that workers must have freedom enough to sell their labor-power to the capitalist,
and freedom enough to reclaim their labor-power from the capitalist. In this way, the
less than optimal conditions of slavery are avoided, while still maintaining the institutional
divisions.
The second condition necessary in order to allow one’s labor-power to become a commodity
is that a worker must not be able to produce a whole commodity by himself. Because
if he could do this, what need would he have for the capitalist? He would have none, and
therefore would bring his own commodities to the marketplace and sell them. Conversely,
should the worker be incapable of producing his own commodities, he would have nothing
to sell in the market, except for his labor-power. This is what would be brought to the
marketplace and then purchased by the capitalist.
Next Message by Dentist is [741].
Question 516 is 286 in 1996ut, 261 in 1997WI, and 495 in 2004fa:
Question 516 What does Marx mean by: “Capital ushers in a new epoch in the process of
social production,” and how does capital do this?
[498] JPeel: graded C Social production needing some ushering. When Marx says,
“Capital ushers in a new epoch in the process of social production,” he is referring to the
amount of exchange for labor. It is so high at this point that there is a complex socialization.
The means of payment needs to reach a certain height and the capital will only arise when
the owner of the means is controlling the labor. The level of production requires means
of exchange as well. The system of means by which human labor and production of labor
rises to various levels that the height of the process requires a method of measurement, or
indicator, that shows a new period in which the cycles emerge. Capital is able to do this
because it is the means of payment relative to the evaluation of the labor or the power to
control labor in the open market. For example, if a owner of a door making company is in
the open market and sells his doors for $54 a piece he is going to have to pay for all sorts of
labor costs. In order to make money he has to make sure that his labor costs do not exceed
the cost of selling the door because he would then start to lose money. Marx is saying that in
this cycle, the means of payment is tied to production and matches to the market at a certain
level. He uses the word “subsistence” to describe this process.

212 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: You are not very clear, but you seem to say that the capitalist can only make profit if he squeezes extra effort
out of the laborer. Small capitalists may be squeezed themselves, they are not much better off than wage laborers,
but in Marx’s theory big capital can just shovel it in because the laborers create far more value, between two to
three times more value, than what they get in wages.
Next Message by JPeel is [587].
Term Paper 535 is 507 in 1997WI, 507 in 1997sp, 907 in 1997ut, 907 in 1998WI, 907 in
1999SP, 907 in 2001fa, and 807 in 2005fa:
Term Paper 535 Essay about Chapter Seven: Labor Process and Valorization Process
[473] Chris, Jeremy, Srichardson, and Trailrunner: graded B+ Labor and the Valorization
Process. Term Paper for Early Birds
Chapter Seven: Labor and Valorization Process
The Labor Process
Labor is a process that takes place between man and nature. This can occur at the hands
of a capitalist, or through the co-joining function of a communistic society. What begins in
nature can eventually become a raw material once man has touched it. This raw material
then becomes a product of labor. An example of this would be a tree that has been milled
into useable lumber. The idea of the labor process begins when a capitalist desires a product,
such as a fishing vessel. The capitalist hires a laborer who takes raw material from nature,
such as a tree, and through the production process turns it into a vessel.
Raw materials can take on multiple use values, but in order for this to happen, it requires
the labor process. With the cutting down of a tree, the labor process begins. It is milled into
lumber, compiled with nails, glue, wood, other materials and a laborer as inputs, and the use
value is altered, turning these raw materials into a commodity, such as the vessel. However,
this final commodity does not have use value for the laborer, but for the capitalist who has
purchased these various inputs, has designed the vessel in his mind and has had this vessel
produced for him.
There are three simple elements of the labor process that Marx refers to in his book
“Capital”. They are (1) purposeful activity, that is work itself, (2) the object on which that
work is being performed, and (3) the instruments of that work. During the labor process, the
laborer uses instruments, or tools, in the production of the commodity. Man is sometimes
referred to as a “tool-making animal.” This is a specific characteristic of the human labor
process making these instruments a part of the labor process. By using these tools, supplying
the labor and building a product such as a fishing vessel, the labor process moves forward.
In looking at the idea of “purposeful activity”, it is Marx’s belief that how people work
largely defines them. It becomes important in an individual’s sense of self. In the case of
a capitalist hiring a laborer to work for him, the worker makes a trade. Instead of putting
his/her labor into something that will give the laborer use value, the capitalist receives the
benefit. Thus, the value of working one’s own land and growing enough to feed oneself,
where the use value of the commodity is used by the laborer, the laborer sells their work to
make a commodity for the capitalist. The use value is now lost to the laborer and belongs to
the capitalist who has purchased the commodity of their labor.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 213
By putting someone to work and having them mold materials into a vessel, the capitalist
is consuming labor. Marx compares the purchase of labor to that of using any commodity
that goes into the process of making a commodity. “Suppose that a capitalist pays for a
day’s worth of labour-power; then the right to use that power for a day belongs to him, just
as much as the right to use any other commodity, such as a horse he had hired for the day.”
Labor itself can also be regarded as a consumption process. When an individual puts labor
to use, they use and consume other commodities. While producing the fishing vessel, labor
consumes the wood, nails, and glue during the production process. It also consumes the
tools that are used in the production by wearing them down. The laborer takes products and
consumes them in order to make another product.
Upon completion of the labor process, the product becomes property of the capitalist. The
capitalist now has an option of consuming/using the commodity for himself (i.e. fishing and
selling the fish that are caught) or selling the vessel. The steps that make up the labor process
can give a surplus value to the capitalist. Capitalists do not produce commodities with usevalues
for their own sake. Rather, they are produced only due to the fact that they have an
exchange-value. Valorization, labor process, and labor power are woven together insomuch
that valorization does not appear to be able to exist independent of the labor process mingled
with labor-power. Capitalists exploit this relationship in order to create surplus value. It can
be noted that the capitalist gains control of the surplus value by having control of the labor
process, the raw material and the tools. The labor process gives the control and the financial
gains to the capitalist and therefore, no control goes to the laborer. The capitalist pays the
laborer his use value for the labor to build the vessel and the use value alone. The exchange
value that the capitalist will gain during the exchange process of the finished commodity
remains solely with the capitalist. Therefore, the capitalist buys control of the labor and the
individual now works for the capitalist and no longer works for them self.
The Valorization Process
The valorization process is one that explains sociological factors in the production of
value. Marx first explains the two objectives of a capitalist on page 293, “in the first place,
he wants to produce a use-value which has exchange-value. . . and secondly he wants to
produce a commodity greater in value than the sum of the values of the commodities used to
produce it.” This quote is of utmost importance and provides the groundwork for the rest of
the valorization process. It must be understood that the capitalist wants a margin of process
and feels entitled to this margin.
Marx explains where the capitalist finds this margin throughout the valorization process.
He presents an example of turning cotton into yarn and the different values associated with
its creation. It is quite apparent that labor must be used to turn the cotton into yarn through
the use of a spindle. Marx does point out that even though there are many ‘steps’ in the
creation of yarn, they are all a part of “the same labour process” (Capital, 294).
The conflict (and rise of capital) takes form once the yarn is produced. Once created, economic
theory would suggest that it would be exchanged on the open market for an equivalent
commodity comprised of similar exchange and labor values. However, the capitalist feels
‘cheated’ that they did not receive something in addition during the exchange considering

214 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
they had provided the capital (spindle) in the first place. Marx notes the exchange on page
301 where he explains how many shillings the worker gets paid and the total value in monetary
terms of the cotton, labor, and yarn. Simplicity is the key to extracting a surplus value.
The fact that half a day’s labor is necessary to keep a worker alive does not mean that he
cannot work more than this. The capitalist takes advantage of this ambiguity. The capitalist
pays the value of a day’s labor, and therefore has it for the day. However, let’s say sustenance
for the laborer only costs a half-day’s labor. Here, the value of a day’s labor-power is
half a day’s labor, and the capitalist can pay the worker at that value. The other half-day’s
labor goes beyond the value of labor-power, and is therefore surplus-value. Now the value
the work created is double what the capitalist paid for it. Marx says, “by incorporating living
labour into their lifeless objectivity, the capitalist simultaneously transforms value into
capital, value which can perform its own valorization process.”
The capitalist paid full value for all of the commodities he used, and then he consumed
their use-value. Because of the asymmetry between the use-value and exchange-value of
labor, however, this allows the capitalist to make a profit. The worker can spend 6 hours in a
24-hour time span to create the yarn in order for the capitalist to break even. It is here where
we see the exploitation of the capitalist. The capitalist realizes that the worker can work up
to 12 hours in that same 24-hour time span and create double the amount of yarn without
the capitalist spending too much more on the worker and the facility. Marx writes that the
value of the yarn in this example turns out to be 30 shillings and the commodities amount
to a total value of 27 shillings, leaving an excess of 3 shillings to the capitalist. Hence, “the
trick has at last worked: money has been transformed into capital” (Capital, 301).
Marx has also made it clear that “in the valorization process it does not in the least matter
whether the labour appropriated by the capitalist is simple labour of average social quality,
or more complex labour.” Due to value being determined by the labor used to produce a
commodity, a more complex commodity being produced requires a more skilled laborer,
which in turn requires a higher price paid for labor. The labor price is a cancelling factor
to the added inherent value, so no surplus-value is created. Once again, the surplus value is
determined by the labor-power exploited from the laborer.
In retrospect, it first appears that the excess value does rightfully belong to the capitalist.
It was this capitalist that provided the capital for the worker to begin with. The capitalist
could have cut their risk of owning the capital and instead, purchased yarn on the open
market without going through the whole labor and employment process. However this is
the point where one of Marx’s most interesting and controversial quotes can be found. On
page 298 he states, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and he might just as
well have intended to make money without producing at all.” It is realized that the good
intentions of the capitalist have turned bad all within a few pages of reading Capital. The
capitalist has discovered something truly detrimental to society: labor can be exploited. The
more the capitalist exploits the labor, the more profit the capitalist will receive. In addition,
the capitalist owns the capital (machinery, i.e. spindles), which gives them extra leverage
against the labor. To take it to the farthest extreme of the spectrum, the capitalist eventually
‘owns’ the society in which everyone lives, through the process of labor exploitation.
Hans: When you say in your first paragraph: “the idea of the labor process begins when a capitalist desires a
product,” you give the capitalist too much credit. Labor processes happen in every society (not just capitalism or

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 215
communism), people have been involved in labor processes long before the first capitalist was born. And at the
beginning of the chapter, Marx discusses the labor process in general; only later will he discuss the specifics of the
labor process in capitalism.
In your second paragraph, don’t call the final product of the labor process a commodity. Not every labor process
produces commodities, i.e., things for the market. And not every labor process results in a product that isn’t a usevalue
for the producer. This is a specific, highly alienating condition of the labor process under capitalism, which
you should not make an attribute of labor in general.
Even if one only looks at capitalist production processes, you are saying some wrong things here. As Marx uses
the word “use-value,” the product does not have use-value for the capitalist either. The capitalist benefits from the
value and surplus-value in the product, not primarily the use-value. And it is a rarity that it is the capitalist who has
designed the product.
Later you say: “Valorization, labor process, and labor power are woven together insomuch that valorization does
not appear to be able to exist independent of the labor process mingled with labor-power.” It is Marx’s objective in
writing this chapter to disentangle these things, and to show exactly how the labor process leads to valorization of
the capital advanced. This is the wrong place to do handwaving.
Later you become more specific about profits, but you come up with the wrong explanation. You explain
capitalist profits by the capitalist working the worker beyond the break-even point. You write: “The capitalist
realizes that the worker can work up to 12 hours in that same 24-hour time span and create double the amount of
yarn without the capitalist spending too much more on the worker and the facility.” This is a tautological explanation
of profits. Since the break-even point is the point at which profits are zero, it is clear that profitable capitalists work
beyond their break-even points, but this does not explain profits. Unfortunately, the core of Marx’s explanation of
profits is given in chapter Six, which was not yet assigned when you had to write the paper. In response to your
presubmission I emailed you that you need to work through chapter Six. Apparently you still have some remaining
misunderstandings regarding chapter Six.
Message [473] referenced by [2009fa:729]. Next Message by Chris is [486], Next Message by Jeremy is [512],
Next Message by Srichardson is [492], and Next Message by Trailrunner is [539].
Question 542 is 452 in 2002fa, 468 in 2003fa, 519 in 2004fa, 493 in 2005fa, 535 in
2007SP, 572 in 2009fa, 635 in 2010fa, 653 in 2011fa, 682 in 2012fa, and 653 in Answer:
Question 542 Explain Marx’s sentence: “The working-day is determinable but in and for
itself indeterminate.”
[510] Alcameron: Who makes this schedule anyway? Marx states, “The working-day is
determinable but in and for itself indeterminate.” The two statements seem to contradict each
other by their completely opposite nature. Hans offers up in his notes that the working day
is determinable by outside forces, such as the law, in some instances. This is definitely true
and visible in many markets, such as truck drivers, or air traffic controllers. Laws determine
how long and how often their workdays are. I would add that in some situations the workday
is determinable by taking into account specific capitalists, cultures, and physiological needs.
A government office worker in Spain has certain conditions that would allow us to calculate
their workday with some sort of accuracy. We know that government offices operate during
specific hours, we would take those bounds into account. It is an accepted and expected
tradition for workers in Spain to have an early afternoon nap, all businesses close their doors
and offices close. That must be taken into account. We know that there is some necessary
labor for each worker because of the costs associated with employing them. All of these
factors, along with physiological needs of the workers can be factored together to determine
what a workday might be for a government office worker in Spain. The working day in and
for itself though is indeterminate, because we cant apply those same factors to other markets

216 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
to determine a workday. The minimum bounds of the workday is fuzzy at best, we know a
value it can’t be less than, but we can’t determine its exact value. The maximum bound is
difficult to set because cultural needs are always changing.
Between specific labor laws and set factors we are sometimes able to determine the working
day. The very nature of the workday though is indeterminate not only from market to
market, but with time as well. What I want is to meet the person who determined the length
of my workday!
Hans: You are telling us how the bounds of the working-day are determined, but over this you forget to tell us the
most important thing, namely, that the working-day itself, as long as it is between these bounds, is indeterminate.
In other words, if the working class is strong enough, they can make it shorter without lowering the daily wage
(i.e., by raising the hourly wage) without breaking any laws of economics or derailing the capitalist system. The
capitalists may complain because they don’t like it when their profits fall, but they will still make profits and the
system is not going to disintegrate if wages are higher and profits are lower. On the contrary, Marx shows in this
chapter that the capitalists, if left to their own devices, are too greedy for their own good. They need the input from
the working class for an efficient capitalist system.
Next Message by Alcameron is [529].
Question 543 is 536 in 2007SP and 574 in 2009fa:
Question 543 Could one not say that the minimum bound for the surplus-labor is enough
surplus-labor that the capitalists can survive?
[506] PrivateProperty: Minimum Bound: Clear as Mud. No, that definition of a
minimum bound is fundamentally flawed, because there is no such thing as a minimum
value the capitalist can survive on. The capitalist has no concept of minimums, as he is
concerned with maximizing value. Anything less than this would not be “surviving.”
In addition, any minimum bound of the working day is not determinable. Sure, workers
have to produce at least the amount that they are paid, but this is not a minimum bound,
because workers always work longer than this. In reality, the ‘bound’ is variable and the
result of a power struggle. I found it interesting when Hans noted in [2007SP:781] that
“...the length of the working day must always be a point of contention.”
Workers want a shorter working day. Employers, longer. Regardless of where it settles,
the ‘ideal’ minimum bound (where there is no surplus labor) is not known, and workers are
unable to intelligently negotiate. It is in the interest of the capitalist to keep workers in the
dark as to what their actual value is; by doing so he denies workers quantifiable leverage. In
this way the minimum bound of the working day is a social issue.
Hans: You are misunderstanding how Marx uses the word “determine.” This word does not indicate how easy
it is to find out about something, but “determinate” is the opposite of “accidental” (a better translation would be
“contingent”). Something is determinate if causal forces are in place that drive towards a regular outcome, while a
contingent outcome only depends on the situation.
Message [506] referenced by [508]. Next Message by PrivateProperty is [555].
[508] Hans: The dangerous illusion of idealist explanations. Workers always work
longer hours than the number of hours that merely reproduces their wage. PrivateProperty
[506] tries to explain this by the capitalists’ mindset or the workers’ lack of knowledge
where exactly this minimum level is. In other words, he is trying to explain the things that
are really happening by what people have in their brains. Marx would say this is the wrong

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 217
methodology of “idealism.” Marx would say that people’s consciousness is determined by
the structure of their society, rather than determining it.
There is one simple economic reason which PrivateProperty should have mentioned here:
if the workers work no more than the time that produces an equivalent of their wages, then
the capitalists cannot make profits, and the capitalists will not employ the workers if there
are no profits. This is not a matter of mindset but of the control over the means of production.
What about a minimum level that is not zero profits but that allows the capitalists to
survive, wouldn’t that satisfy the capitalists? The problem with this explanation is that capitalist
production is not driven by the consumption needs of the capitalist. The structure of
our society requires profits and growth, and those capitalists who do not relentlessly maximize
profits will quickly be outcompeted or bought out. Again it is important to understand
that this is not caused by the attitude of the capitalists, but it is a systemic necessity of the
way production is organized in capitalism, which the capitalists then adopt as their own
individual motivation. This in-built necessity to grow is one of the big obstacles to sustainable
capitalism. Capitalists oppose sustainability not because they are suicidal but because
sustainability is incompatible with the deep structure of capitalism. Sustainable capitalism,
if we can pull it off, will be quite a different animal than the capitalism which we all are
familiar with.
Next Message by Hans is [515].
Exam Question 544 is 395 in 2000fa, 420 in 2001fa, 453 in 2002fa, 469 in 2003fa, 521
in 2004fa, 495 in 2005fa, 537 in 2007SP, 536 in 2007fa, 575 in 2009fa, 658 in 2011fa,
and 687 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 544 How are the minimal and maximal bounds of the working-day determined?
[505] PrivateProperty: How Much Wood Does a Woodchuck Chuck? A worker must
work at least long enough to produce the value that he/she is being compensated. This could
be anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours. However, this is a bare minimum, and the
capitalist seeks to maximize the value he or she can extract from workers. As a result, the
capitalist subjects his/her workers to a working day that generates substantial surplus value,
often unbeknownst to them.
The maximum bound of the working-day is physically constrained. Marx says that
“Within the 24 hours of the natural day a man can expend only a definite quantity of his
vital force.” A worker needs time to sleep, eat, attend to his hygiene, and travel to and from
work. Otherwise he cannot perform his job effectively. Marx also argues that the worker
needs time to satisfy ‘cultural’, social and intellectual needs. I think this is nice of Marx to
assert this right, but in reality, employers do not often recognize this. From the view of the
capitalist at least, these needs are not considered in the determination of a maximum bound
for the work-day.
I think Marx comes up with a fair definition for how long the work day should be. He
says, in Hans’ words, that “The length of the work day must be such that it does not rob the

218 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
laborer of his health or shorten his life.” Would it be humane to work if it meant harming
yourself? No, it wouldn’t. Do people work anyway? Yes, of course they do.
In American corporate culture, work deteriorates our health. Work stresses us out, grays
our hairs, and shortens our lives. A question I pose is, are we doing this to ourselves? Or are
we being forced to? Who has the power to determine how long we must work?
Hans: Apparently you were not aware that this is an exam question, therefore you did not try to give an answer
which covers all relevant points as tersely as possible. You did cover all relevant points, but embedded in an essay
of your own. If you were to answer this question in an exam, I would be looking for a “minimal answer” as in
[2007SP:1001]. Some background info about this minimal answer is given in [2003fa:432], and I also recommend
[2007fa:395] if you want to fully understand this question.
Next Message by PrivateProperty is [506].
[509] Alcameron: When does this workday end? The minimum and maximum bounds
of a work day are elastic and in the case of the minimum quite fuzzy. To put a numerical
value on the minimum length of a workday we must look through two scopes. There is an
amount of necessary labor that a worker must perform in order to recuperate his own labor
costs. This necessary labor could be looked at from the laborer’s standpoint as a minimum
bound of his workday. This view is unsatisfactory for the capitalist however. He must never
let the minimum length of his laborers work day be just their necessary labor, that would
eliminate all surplus labor time which is vital to his efficiency. So from a capitalist’s view
point the minimum is a fuzzy length of time that is greater than the necessary labor of each
worker. This necessity of the minimum bound being greater than the necessary labor of each
worker is not only vital to the capitalist, but to the worker as well. The security of his job
rests in part on the amount of surplus labor is produced, thus benefiting both parties.
The maximum bounds of a work day are determinable, but unique to various situations
and elastic as well. The first factor is there are only 24 hrs in a day, so obviously the
maximum bound must be less than that. One must also consider that each day there must be
time allotted to clean and maintain oneself, eat, sleep, and perform necessary daily functions
of survival. This time must be subtracted from the 24 hours available in one day. These
factors are grouped under physiological necessities of humans. Even further beyond these
physiological needs, one has cultural needs like personal time to spend with family, time
to enjoy a hobby, or spend with friends. As you can imagine the amount of cultural needs
differ greatly from market to market. An executive of an American company might deem it
necessary to golf several times per week, this takes away further from the maximum bound
of his workday. The laborer in Spain feels it an absolute necessity to take a “siesta” (nap)
in the early afternoon. Culturally this is not only acceptable but expected and must be taken
into account when looking at the maximum bound of a workday.
So we have our determinable yet difficult to numerate workday. A minimum bound that
is greater than the necessary labor of each worker, and a maximum bound that takes into
account the physiological and cultural needs of humans. Within those bounds we find the
differing length of workdays many of us subject ourselves to.
Hans: Executive salaries are part of surplus-value. They take the form of a wage labor relation, but a Marxist
would say the content is quite different. So forget the remark about golfing. Cars and color TVs are part of the
workers’ habitual means of consumption and have an economic function as such, their cost determines the wages,
but golfing does not determine profits.
Message [509] referenced by [515]. Next Message by Alcameron is [510].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 219
[515] Hans: Necessary Labor Time Versus Break-Even Level of Output. In some
answers from previous years, and in this Semester’s [509], Marx’s concept of necessary
labor time is equated with the break-even level of output. I want to explain here, by an
example, that they are two different things. I am pulling my numbers completely out of my
head, I never ran a small business in my life, but I am trying to make them kind of realistic. If
you have insights where this example is unrealistic and what more realistic numbers would
be, please answer this, using question number 888.
If Marx says that one hour of labor, which costs the capitalist say $20 in payroll costs,
adds much more than $20 to the value of the output, then this is not something alien to many
employees. Look for instance at the following example. The firm has ten employees, each
of whom produces one widget per hour. These widgets sell for $45 each. They require
only labor and machinery, to keep the calculations simple let us ignore any materials used.
Perhaps it is an ISP and the widgets are web pages, or it is an automated print shop, but
we ignore paper and ink, or a beauty shop. The capitalist’s fixed cost to run the business is
$650 a day. This includes $300 depreciation of the machinery, $50 advertising, and $300
rent, business taxes, interest, and franchise cost for the well-established Widget-in-a-box
franchise. We are ignoring telephone and utilities and income taxes.
Each employee gets $160 per day in wages, and the fixed cost per employee is $65. Then
the break-even output is 5 widgets per employee, because 5 times $45 = $225, which pays
for the employee’s wage plus the fixed cost. Let’s say the capitalist can usually sell 60
widgets per day, i.e., 6 per employee. On some days more customers come to the counter,
on others fewer, and the capitalist cannot lay anybody off, because then he would have too
long waiting times and would lose customers.
An employee who confuses necessary labor with the break-even point might think the
necessary labor is 5 hours, and the surplus-labor is up to 3 hours, according to how many
customers show up, but on average it is 1 hour.
Marx would say: The socially necessary labor-time is not 1 hour per widget but 1 1/2
hours per widget, namely, 1 hour and 20 minutes direct labor and 10 minutes depreciation
of the machinery. If the widgets contain 1 1/2 hours and sell for $45, this means that 1 hour
of labor produces a value of $30, not $45 as it may seem to the worker.
The direct labor includes the waiting time, because there is no way to produce widgets
without this waiting time. Remember the socially necessary time is not the minimum time
but the time that it normally takes. Since the average output of the machine is 60 widgets,
the $300 daily depreciation of the machine is $5 per widget, or 10 minutes per widget.
The worker’s labor produces therefore $30 per hour, but wage is $20, which means that
necessary labor-time is 2/3 of eight hours, that is 5 hours 20 minutes. The surplus labor time
is 2 hours 40 minutes, which is a value of $80 per day. Of this surplus-value, the capitalist
gets $45 per day, of which he spends on advertising $5 per day, and other capitalists and
the state get $35 per day. (Rent, franchise, interest, and taxes all come out of surplus-value).
This is per employee, i.e., the capitalists takes home $400 per day, about 2 1/2 times as much
as the employees (and he does not have to make widgets but can take long vacations).

220 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Message [515] referenced by [675], [2009fa:729], [2011fa:498], [2011fa:627], and [2012fa:922]. Next Message
by Hans is [519].
Term Paper 572 is 810 in 2002fa, 810 in 2003fa, 810 in 2004fa, 568 in 2007SP, 576 in
2008fa, 604 in 2009fa, 667 in 2010fa, 687 in 2011fa, and 716 in 2012fa:
Term Paper 572 Children and the Struggle around the Working Day
[500] Dentist, Kevin, Rampton, and Rey: graded A Capitalism and the affliction of
child labor. According to Marx, the exploitation of child labor stems from a capitalistic
thirst to draw all possible surplus labor from the working day. As Marx states, “surplus
labor is not new in capitalism, but capitalism does bring something new” (Hans’s annotation
to 344:2/o). Traditionally, people had sought to extract surplus labor as a means to live a
slightly more comfortable lifestyle. According to use-values, a laborer found great benefit
in surplus labor, however, with the introduction of exchange-value and accumulation as
the motivation for production overwork runs rampant. As capitalism sought to extract the
maximum amount of surplus labor from each working day, it introduced long working hours
and horrific conditions as a means to maximize surplus labor. This was exacerbated by the
fact that parents were sending their children to the workplace in order to survive.
Marx defines the normal working day to be “the length of time needed by the worker
every day to produce an equivalent of his or her daily wage” (Hans annotation, 340:1).
Capitalism forced the working day to become much longer than this. It required the creation
of as much surplus-value as possible. This implied a continuous production process and a
maximization of the length of the working day. The worker however had needs that had to
be met in terms of physical replenishment as well as social, intellectual and other civilian
requirements. As the working day continued to absorb more of the fixed natural day, the
laborer was robbed of his opportunity to acquire these necessities. The effect was, as Marx
says, a shortened life expectancy as a result of an extended production-time. Leading to a
very short life expectancy was pulmonary illness and was often the direct result of some
horrific working conditions.
During this time, child labor was no exception to the rule. Child labor has traditionally
been a means of low cost, expendable labor. Machines increased the amount and ease of
production. Labor became much easier which allowed children to do the same work many
skilled laborers had done previously. Children were also allowed to work in horrific conditions.
Those under 13 years old were allowed to work a 6 hour half day but in many cases
this age was significantly lower with hours far surpassing 6. As a result of child labor, society
was forced to pay a tremendous price. Referring to excessively poor conditions Rev.
Montagu Valpy describes the price society pays as a “slow sacrifice of humanity.” (Capital,
353-4) Marx said:
“The manufacture of matches, on account of its unhealthiness and unpleasantness,
has such a bad reputation that only the most miserable part of the
working class, half-starved widows and so forth, deliver up their children
to it, their ‘ragged, half-starved, untaught children’.” (Capital, 356)

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 221
Some workers in this industry were as young as six. The working day extended from
twelve to fifteen hours, including “night-labor, irregular meal-times and meals mostly taken
in the workrooms themselves, pestilent with phosphorus” (Capital, 356). To support this,
Marx related testimony upon testimony of the detrimental outcomes to these conditions.
One testimony has reference to William Wood, a 9 year old that had been working for a
year and a half. He started at age 7 and a half working the moulds, carrying ready molded
articles across the factory to the drying room then back to the empty mould room. His work
began at 6am and did not cease until 9pm. Fifteen hours a day, 6 days a week at 7.5 years
old.
In late 19th century England led to children were nothing more than “personified labortime”
(Capital, 352). Another description of these circumstances was given by Mr. Broughton
Charlton in Nottingham during an Assembly Meeting. He states:
“Children of nine or ten years are dragged from their squalid beds at two,
three, or four o’clock in the morning and compelled to work for a bare
subsistence until ten, eleven, or twelve at night, their limbs wearing away,
their frames dwindling, their faces whitening, and their humanity absolutely
sinking into a stone-like torpor, utterly horrible to contemplate.” (Capital,
353)
Marx, however, was not the only author to note the changes regarding children during the
rise of capitalism. In his book The making of the English working class, E. P. Thompson
describes the change of the quality of life during this time and what effects it had on the average
person. During Feudalism in England children were often at home with their mothers
during the day. Fathers worked the land on which they lived to produce for their family and
to pay their landlord. As times changes into a more capitalistic society even those children
not working out of the house were required to perform labors previously performed by their
mothers. Mothers could no longer complete these tasks though as their labor was employed
to tasks outside the home. The child laborer then went from house servant to part of the
labor force in England as families endeavored towards economic success. This success that
they had hoped for though never came. This caused a disintegration of the family. Fathers
literally had to hire out their children so that they could eat.
In The making of the English Working Class, E.P. Thompson’s thoughts and statements
support Marx’s. Thompson talks about the work of children in industrial industry and the
difference it has from agricultural labor under the supervision of parents. The apologists for
child labor are indeed correct that it was not associated only with industrialization. “The
child was an intrinsic part of the agricultural and industrial economy before 1780, and remained
so until rescued by the school” (Thompson, p 332). Climbing boys and ship’s boys
were subjected to very bad conditions. But most child laborers before the industrial revolution
worked at “home or within the family economy” (Thompson, p 332). Fetching and
carrying by very small children or work alongside parents in cotton spinning were common.
“So deeply-rooted was child labor in the textile industries that these were often held up to
the envy of laborers in other occupations where children could not find employment and add
to the family earnings” (Thompson, p 332).

222 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Thompson later talked about labor in the farming industry. “In agriculture, children–often
ill-clothed–would work in all weathers in the fields or about the farm.” (Thompson, p 332).
This was different from the factory; they would have had a routine of jobs and tasks that they
had to perform. These tasks were not like the chores that are required of children today. They
were required to perform tasks such as winding bobbins all day long in slave-like conditions.
They went from being children and mere servants in homes to factory workers in a matter of
years.
Additionally, capitalism did not see a child for what he was, a developing person that
had specific social, physical and intellectual needs. Capitalism perceived a child merely as
a worker, who was distinguishable by no more than the characteristic of “half-timer” versus
that of “full-timer.” And from here we can continue into capital’s perception that a worker
is “nothing more than personified labour-time” (Capital, 352-353). In this way, a child
was barely distinguishable from an adult, and both were hardly discernable from the very
machinery they operated. As Marx put it, “food is added to the worker as mere means of
production, as coal is supplied to the broiler, and grease and oil to the machinery” (Capital,
376).
The fact that adults were being overworked and how children were being exploited for
cheap labor and long hours was not the biggest public outcry, but it was the adulteration of
bread. Both Marx and Thompson discussed why society did nothing about these despicable
conditions. They suggested a myth of a time in early capitalism that kept the oppressed working
towards a fictitious past, an illusional time in history that did not really exist. Thompson
described this as the “golden age.” Stories passed down from generation to generation spoke
of a time when all was well and everyone was happy. Marx discussed this myth in chapter 26
of Capital. He explained that the working class struggle for gain because they were told the
rich have wealth through diligence, intelligence, and frugality and the poor were destitute
because of laziness. In actual capitalism, this was the exact reverse.
Marx believed that Capitalism manipulated and forced parents to adopt and condone the
idea of children in the workplace. Though working conditions were bad, families had no
choice but to work for long hours and send their children to work as well. For little to no
money children would work exhausting hours, 10-15 hours a day to stay alive and not go
hungry. They worked only to eat and had been reduced from a life of being a child to a life
of extreme poverty.
Capitalism was blind to humanity, and did not naturally act in mankind’s best interest. It
acted rather, in order to quench its own thirst for the living blood of labor. (Capital, 367)
Marx called attention to the horrifying acts that were thrust upon children known as child
labor in order to petition the very human nature that capital ignored. By petitioning for
emotional response in this way, humanity could be more easily awakened to the exploitation
on the human race.
Message [500] referenced by [502], [2008fa:5], and [2008fa:19]. Next Message by Dentist is [704], Next Message
by Kevin is [626], Next Message by Rampton is [662], and Next Message by Rey is [610].
[502] Hans: The Horrors of Child Labor in Historical Perspective. Term paper [500]
deepened my understanding why children were so blatantly abused and exploited during the
Industrial revolution. I thank the authors for writing an excellent and very informative paper,

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 223
which brought in relevant texts not only from Marx but from others. The information about
the tradition of child labor in agriculture, and about attitudes towards children in general,
was especially helpful.
There is one item where I have to wag my Marxist schoolmasterly finger at you. In the
first paragraph, the authors write: “Traditionally, people had sought to extract surplus labor
as a means to live a slightly more comfortable lifestyle.” This is a fever case of methodological
individualism! The extraction of surplus labor is not the result of individual decisions
but of class structures. Marx says that the earlier class structures were still suffused in a
humanity which was lost in capitalism. The exploitation of the laborer was exploitation for
use-value, and was therefore limited by the limited consumption desires of the ruling class.
Those at the receiving end of this class structure tried to be as excessive as they could imagine,
by eating vast amounts of food and then vomiting to that they could eat more, or taking
baths in donkey’s milk. But only when the object of exploitation was no longer use-value
but value did exploitation generally become limitless and proceeded to such a level where
the workers were systematically worked to death or where small children were sacrificed.
Such situations were the exception in the Middle Ages or Antiquity.
Next Message by Hans is [508].
Question 581 is 506 in 2002fa, 524 in 2003fa, 577 in 2004fa, 529 in 2005fa, 578 in
2007SP, 573 in 2007fa, 585 in 2008fa, 614 in 2009fa, 677 in 2010fa, 697 in 2011fa, and
726 in 2012fa:
Question 581 According to Marx, the only way to increase profits is to shorten the portion
of the day during which the workers produce an equivalent of their wage, and to extend
that portion of the day when they create unreimbursed new value for the capitalist. Are the
capitalists aware of it that all their cost cutting measures, if successful, go at the expense of
their workers?
[517] Inter: Cost cutting measures. My initial response to this question was yes, capitalists
know that all their cost cutting measures, if successful, go at the expense of their workers.
However, upon further consideration, my initial response was wrong. I am sure capitalists
are aware that some of their cost cutting measures are at the expense of their workers. At the
same time, I also believe that capitalists are unaware that some of their cost cutting measures
are at the expense of their workers. The best example of the latter comes from [2003fa:452]
by Oak, who explains how capitalists do not follow Marx’s ideas of labor. My example for
the former is as follows:
I was previously employed in a production room operating a high-speed scanner. The
original scanning corps consisted of three people, including myself. It was observed while
one of my co-workers was on extended leave, that two workers could finish the day’s quota
in 10 hours, rather than three workers finishing the day’s quota in 8 hours. As a result, my
former company “let go” the co-worker on extended leave. In this way, they were forced to
pay me and my co-worker for 10 hours (4 hours of total over-time, 2 per worker) but did
not have to pay for a full worker’s 8 hours. My co-worker and I did not receive any addition
increase in our normal hourly wage, even though our job duties increased. I believe that the

224 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
capitalists who owned my former company were very aware that this cost cutting measure
was at the expense of me and my co-workers.
Message [517] referenced by [2008fa:815] and [2008fa:1127]. Next Message by Inter is [643].
Term Paper 591 is 834 in 2002fa, 586 in 2004fa, 539 in 2005fa, 592 in 2007SP, 583 in
2007fa, 595 in 2008fa, and 624 in 2009fa:
Term Paper 591 How do modern intellectual property rights fit together with Marx’s theory
of capitalism?
[614] Bmellor, Clayon, CousinIt, Mick, and Nstew: Intellectual Property Rights as it
relates to Marx’s Theory of Capitalism. The idea behind modern day intellectual property
rights is to grant the creator exclusive rights to allow him or her to appropriate much
of the creation’s social value. The ownership of ideas implies the right to exclude others.
Intellectual property law tries to draw a line between incentives for innovation and dissemination.
In this essay we will highlight some examples of intellectual property law as it relates
to Marx theory of capitalism; specifically the free software movement, pharmaceuticals, and
music.
If the invention or idea has no close substitutes, granting a patent creates monopoly power.
(The economic definition of monopoly means in a broad sense a single seller can affect
prices, vs. the narrow way as seen in a competitive market system.) Monopolists earn a
greater rate of return than “ordinary” on an investment.
There are social costs associated with monopolies, which is why there are laws that prevent
the formation of certain types of officially declared monopolies. If too little of a monopolized
good is produced the price will be far too high. Typically when there is current
patent in effect the patented good sells a low quantity at a higher price. Once the patent
expires, the price falls and the quantity increases.
We issue patents to reward creative individuals and impede dissemination. The truth
about intellectual property rights is this; in recent history it has been scrutinized under the
magnifying eye of economic analysis. However, the economic analysis is insufficient, even
today. The typical process of economic analysis involves comparing “equilibria with fixed
technology” (also known as static equilibrium analysis), where intellectual property rights
require an analysis of innovation and changing technology. While we may not have economic
tools sufficient to provide proper insight, in the meantime, the economic analysis
must proceed with the tools at hand. Besides the trouble associated with the inadequate
scientific tools, intellectual property law aligns poorly with economic efficiency because the
legislatures respond to politically powerful special interest groups who care about their own
profits more than the nation’s wealth. The development of high technological industries
challenges both economic theory and the law.
There are individuals that work in creative fields that forfeit all their intellectual property
rights, while they are employed at a certain firm. For example there are contracts that software
developers sign that gives the company they work for rights to all creative property the
individual creates while they are employed at the firm. It doesn’t matter if you create this
at home or if you create it a work, the ideas you come up with are not your own. Never

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 225
mind the moral dilemma that this might pose, let’s look specifically at the economic inefficiency
of this contractual clause. By taking ownership of a certain individual’s creativity
you limit the incentives that this individual has to develop their ideas and that limitation on
development passes on to the rest of society where we are slowed down in our development.
This fits nicely with Marx’s theory of capitalism. Marx expounded on the labor theory of
value to show that according to the labor theory of value capitalists exploit the workers by
depriving them of value that workers themselves create. Marx believed that the profit that
the capitalist derived came from the value of the labor the worker created minus the wage
that the worker was paid, all of these profits the capitalist lays claim to solely because he is
the owner of the means of production. From a Marxist perspective the means of production
should be socially owned.
Do you really slow progress by giving people ownership to their intellectually property?
There is valid argument for both sides; people are rewarded handsomely for the development
of an idea with no substitutes. But that begs the question is the benefit of the sole individual
greater than the social benefit that their product could pass on to society? Would that individual
even come up with the idea in the first place if they knew that the idea was going to
become socialized property, and not a monetary reward?
As mentioned above, a significant critique of capitalism is inherent in the free software
movement. People like Richard Stallman, among others, adhere to what is called the ‘Hacker
Ethic.’ Hacker ethic is a set of moral imperatives that the free software movement arises out
of. In the beginning of the development of computer capabilities, the source code (the programming
language that makes all software functional and computers useful) was freely
traded and exchanged amongst a dispersed group of computer programmers and programming
hobbyists. Without this free exchange, what we are now able to do with computers
would have been greatly inhibited and progress along these lines significantly and indefinitely
delayed. The hacker ethic is delineated by Levy (1994) as follows:
“Access to computers – and anything which might teach you something about the way the
world works – should be unlimited and total. Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative!”
(40). According to this principle, there are essential lessons to be learned from taking things
apart and re-assembling them in more useful ways, according to the whims and purposes of
the user. This is necessary and essential for improvement upon pre-existing machinery and
should not in any way be hindered or restricted.
“All information should be free” (40-41). There should be a free exchange of ideas and
information so that science and technology can be developed toward more useful and efficient
ends in a process that optimizes and capitalizes upon the work and insights of others
engaged in any scientific pursuit. For hackers, this is the basis of the scientific method that
facilitates the growth of knowledge toward optimal results.
“Mistrust Authority – Promote Decentralization” (41). Hackers believe that systems
should be open to scrutiny and thus to modification by the user. Authoritarian central control
and proprietary secrecy are shunned. Under this rubric all source code (the code underlying
software that makes it work) should be open and available for manipulation according to the
demands and needs of the person using it.

226 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
“Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age,
race, or position” (43). This flies in the face of conventional merit systems. A hacker must
prove him or herself (though most hackers are male) by re-writing or modifying the code
of a system or creating new programs. The hacker meritocracy is more about ability and
the reputation of ingenuity following a person because of the work done to improve the
capabilities of the system.
“You can create art and beauty on a computer” (43-44). This is an example of the aesthetic
sensibilities of the hacker. Code is not just pragmatic and useful, but aesthetically pleasing
and enlightening in the same way that other artworks are for other sub-culture interest groups
as well as for the entire culture. Coding eloquence is as important as pragmatic results.
Elegant solutions to difficult problems of computing are highly esteemed.
“Computers can change your life for the better” (45-46). Computers can be put to uses
that enhance our lives and make them better than they were before we could get the machines
to do what we want them to do. This has far-reaching potential for the role of computer
technology in culture and society. One need only look to the ways in which simple computers
have been used in the medical field, in data storage and analysis, and in gaming, art, and
music for examples of ways that computers have enhanced abilities and potential innovations
in these fields.
Taken together, the hacker ethic as stated by Levy and the free software movement act
as a critique of intellectual property rights. This is a critique that can be extended to a
critique of private property. The parallels between this set of ethics and the movement it
has fostered and the critique of capitalism that Marx offers are apparent. The free software
movement critiques proprietary software and intellectual property rights in much the same
fashion, and with the same outcomes for the general humanity, that Marx’s critique of capitalism
points to. They both critique the notion of ownership of the means of production,
the critique coming from the free software movement shifting that critique to the domain of
‘intellectual property’ in a way that Marx could not have possibly foreseen. Both allude to
a decentralization of the production process, social ownership of the means of production,
and the betterment of the human condition for everyone due the efficiency of free access to
information and technology as the very means of production.
In Part 1 of Karl Marx, Allen Wood says, “Historical progress consists fundamentally
in the growth of people’s abilities to shape and control the world around them. This is
the most basic way in which they develop and express their human essence.” Marxian theory
asserts the conflict between human nature and the capitalist mode of production, arguing that
workers are alienated from their labor, thereby arresting the progress of society through the
loss of control of their own existence. This theory has practical implications in the modern
debate over pharmaceutical companies and intellectual property.
In 1998, several pharmaceutical companies filed a lawsuit against the government of
South Africa for the production and disbursement of generic drugs. This movement was
an effort to provide affordable treatment to the dying AIDS population. While the suit was
eventually dropped for PR purposes, the ordeal raised some ethical questions regarding the
abuse of intellectual property rights at the expense of an entire society. More specifically, it

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 227
ignited the debate over the use of patents as a right or a privilege. Though Marxian theory
is detached from a specific moral code, it is engrossed in the philosophical understanding
of human nature, and human needs. South Africa is just one example of a fundamental
breakdown in capitalist principles with regards to intellectual property rights.
First, the obvious argument exists that these multi-national pharmaceutical corporations
value profit more than not only the essential needs of humanity, but of human life itself.
Second, a Marxian theory suggests that denying the public the rights to such ideas and
formulations, as prohibiting life saving medical treatment to a needy population, stagnates
societal progress. Governments grant temporary monopolies on the belief that higher priced
commodities will help finance and commercialize new products. Pharmaceutical patents
remain in effect for 20 years, under the supposition that each drug requires millions of dollars
to fund research, development and clinical trials. However, pharmaceutical companies have
little incentive to generate innovation where there is no market. While the South African
population is in desperate need of these medications, it is not profitable for companies to
produce drugs for diseases that primarily affect the poor. This grossly prevents progress.
Third, Marxian analysis suggests that multi-national corporations not only prohibit progress,
but perpetuate the degradation of the proletarian worker. For example, in South Africa, a
substantial portion of its population is employed by the multi-national corporations that own
and run the mining industry. The workers are paid so little that they are forced to live in
the mining towns alone, separated from their wives and children. The isolation persuades
these workers to seek solace in prostitutes, who are largely infected with the AIDS virus.
On returning home, the men infect their wives, thus continuing the rapid spread of disease
and the downward spiral of the community. The multi-national corporations’ effects on the
proletariat have far reaching implications. It stunts societal progress by denying workers the
means to provide for themselves and their families, and it furthers the Marxian philosophy
on labor alienation. Marx articulates on the dehumanization of drudgery work in his Economic
and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, in which he says in reference to the labor of
the worker,
That it does not belong to his nature, that therefore he does not realize
himself in his work, that he denies himself in it, that he does not feel at
ease in it, but rather unhappy, that he does not develop any free physical or
mental energy, but rather mortifies his flesh and ruins his spirit.
South Africa is but one example in which the capitalist laws of intellectual property deny
progress and perpetuate the class divide criticized by Marx. Pharmaceutical companies profit
billions of dollars on the production and the distribution of medication. While capitalist
theory would suggest such profit furthers progress, there is sufficient evidence to conclude
that this advancement is limited to expanding the wealth of a few, while exploiting and
worsening the conditions of many.
With the rapid increase of technology, new regulations have been created to help ensure
that due credit is given to the producer of such technology. Whether or not these intellectual
property rights are fair or not is a real issue. New technology, or intellectual products can
also be described as labor done with the mind and creative genius. Although the product

228 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
is produced on tangible objects, (CD’s, software, books) the value of these goods is intrinsic
with the data contained therein. Although there are many products today that were
not present during Marx’s era, there are also many today that did exist during the time of
Marx. Analyzing how Marx treated such issues in his day can help us understand how our
contemporary issues can be seen.
Two main things that existed during Marx’s day that are present today as well are literature,
and Music. Literature covers a wide spectrum from poetry, fantasy and fiction, to
History, non-fiction, and science. It can also be broken down into two categories, 1) that
which is created purely by intellectual labor, 2) and that which is a mixture of both intellectual
and physical labor. Music can be analyzed much easier, since it is an absolute product
of the intellect, but it can also be organized in two distinct ways; 1) the product of music
manuscript, 2) and the product of a performance of such a piece.
Marx states that in a capitalist economy, the laborer does not receive the fair share of his
labor, and that the capitalist receives pay for a part of the work done by the laborer. Marx
goes on to say that the laborer should receive all the pay for all his labor. With regard to the
intellectual products mentioned above, we can see how the different societies would regard
such goods.
Literature that is created mainly by intellect can most often be given the genre of fantasy
and poetry. This is the sole creation of the author. In Marx’s view, the author should receive
all of the revenues of his work minus the cost of the materials (such as paper and printing),
and the labor involved in producing the book. In the capitalist society, the opposite is true as
the author receives a low percentage of his work. While some revenue does go towards cost
of labor in producing the physical good, the surplus of it goes to the publisher, who “made
possible” the printing of the book. It should be noted however that the publisher would not
have work to do without the labor of the author. This is not to say that the publisher should
not receive any pay, for he surely does create a vehicle for the author and his work. He
provides the opportunity for mass production of this good. The relationship between the
author and the publisher should be symbiotic, and each should receive the due pay of their
labor.
Music is conceived in the mind of the composer and he then proceeds to transcribe these
revelations to paper that can be understood by the majority. Like the author, the composer
has a very similar relationship to the publisher of his music. The above analysis can be used
here again both for the Marxian and Capitalist perspective. Perhaps an additional complication
is that besides producing printed manuscripts, music can also be performed live for
the people. Thus it can be said that a concert is also a product. Here though, there can be
many laborers involved. In the case of a symphony, there are various instrumentalists; the
violins, cellists, brass section, woodwinds, etc. They provide their labor not only during the
performance, but also in practice sessions leading up to it. Along with the musicians and the
composer, there also must be a concert hall which provides seating for those in attendance
as well as an acoustic atmosphere. Here, all three groups live in a symbiotic relationship; the
musicians can’t play without any compositions, a composer’s work cannot become known
without performances, the performance requires a concert hall, and yet there would be no
concert hall without musicians and music to play.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 229
The equations involved in dividing up labor is something I dare not compute for its complications
and my limitations. Different musicians learn the same music at different speeds.
Although one musician might learn it quicker than another, and others spend more time on
it, they deliver the same end product. Do we pay according to the labor input or according
to the end product? The same can be said of composers’ work. Some pieces of music come
instantly to the composer and are received well by the people, while others are a product of
many years, and yet when finally completed receive little recognition.
However the revenue is divided, Marx is clear on his stand that each laborer should receive
a fair share for their labor, whether it is manual or intellectual. If any person receives
some of the revenue created by the labor of another, Marx would denounce it. If either party
abuses its relationship with the other when distributing the revenue, it would fall under the
umbrella of capitalism. If the author receives some of the revenue created by the physical
labor of producing the book, this is unjust. Likewise, if the Producer of the physical good
receives revenue for the work of the author, there is an imbalance that must be addressed.
Modern day intellectual property rights grant the creator exclusive rights to allow him
or her to appropriate much of the creation’s social value. Intellectual property law tries to
draw a line between incentives for innovation and dissemination while some would argue
that these laws give the inventor an unfair advantage that costs society. In this essay we
highlighted some examples of intellectual property law as it relates to Marx’s theory of
capitalism; specifically the free software movement, pharmaceuticals, and music. From
these examples we encourage the reader to derive what they feel to be just.
Next Message by Bmellor is [666], Next Message by Clayon is [753], Next Message by CousinIt is [686], Next
Message by Mick is [728], and Next Message by Nstew is [624].
Question 592 is 237 in 1996sp, 289 in 1997WI, 354 in 1997sp, 515 in 2002fa, 535 in
2003fa, 588 in 2004fa, 541 in 2005fa, 584 in 2007fa, 596 in 2008fa, 625 in 2009fa, 688
in 2010fa, 708 in 2011fa, and 737 in 2012fa:
Question 592 Why can we gain a scientific understanding of “the sphere of competition”
only after having grasped the inner nature of capital?
[516] FiveFingers: The Complexity of Competition. It is easy to say that “one must
learn to crawl before they can walk”, but saying that one must understand the inner nature
of capital before one can understand “the sphere of competition” is MUCH more complex.
Before one can get a grasp on “the sphere of competition”, they must understand everything
that leads up to it. He must know how Marx defines a commodity, which then helps
him understand how Marx derives the value of the commodity, and then how that value
shapes the capitalist society.
In [2007fa:409], Hans explains that the hidden relations of production are beyond the
control of the individuals. At first glance of the market, one might assume that “the sphere
of competition” is driven by the commodities being exchanged. Marx’s theory explains that
the value behind the commodity is driven by the abstract labor put into the commodity and
the resources that go into it.

230 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Although the “sphere of competition” is what we see tangibly, it is the backbone of
“value” that must really be understood.
Hans: In [2007fa:399], Deborah said that the commodity is basic and competition is the big picture. My response
[2007fa:409] disagreed with both halves of Deborah’s statement. No, the commodity itself is not basic, but the
production of value is basic, and no, competition is not the big picture, but I compared the competitive agents with
marionettes with the value relations in production pulling the strings. Your answer builds on [2007fa:409] but you
didn’t fully understand what I wanted to say there (that is why I summarized it once more for you).
Question 593 is 589 in 2004fa, 542 in 2005fa, 595 in 2007SP, and 585 in 2007fa:
Question 593 Is it necessary or useful for the capitalists themselves, in order to be more
successful in competition, to know about the inner laws of “capital in general”?
[514] Jason: Good, Bad or Neither? After reading all the previous responses to this
question I have to agree with what seems to be the general consensus. Knowing of the inner
laws of “capital in general” would not be terribly useful and definitely not necessary in order
to be more successful. Just by participating as a capitalist in the system you are obeying the
laws. Being aware of the laws would not give you a competitive advantage, you would just
have a better understanding of why you were doing what you were doing. Any competitive
advantage capitalists do have are only temporary until the rest of the gang manages to catch
up.
That said, Hans stated in [2007fa:417] that by being aware of the inner laws would actually
be detrimental to a capitalists strategy. He says that by being aware of the inner laws
capitalists would see the exploitation of their laborers and be somehow disturbed by it. I
disagree with this, if you look at early capitalism before most labor laws were established
you’ll see that factory owners were incredibly cruel. They forced men, women, and children
to work long hours in unsafe conditions. If a laborer was injured on the job they would most
likely be fired and replaced with a healthy new employee. The top dogs in early capitalism
were far worse than anything the inner laws imply. As I said earlier I agree that understanding
the laws will not help capitalists be more successful, but I don’t think understanding will
hurt them in any way.
If a large group of laborers figured these laws out however, we’d have a another matter
altogether...
Hans: You are right about the cruelty of capitalism. Today it is readily apparent in third-world sweatshops, while
the core countries of capitalism try to to project a more humane face to their own populations. The system outsources
its cruelty not only through CIA renditions. And as long as the cruelty is elsewhere, people do not seem to
get too upset about it.
Next Message by Jason is [521].
Exam Question 596 is 218 in 1995ut, 242 in 1996sp, 293 in 1997WI, 365 in 1998WI, 366
in 1999SP, 453 in 2000fa, 479 in 2001fa, 518 in 2002fa, 538 in 2003fa, 592 in 2004fa,
545 in 2005fa, 598 in 2007SP, 588 in 2007fa, 600 in 2008fa, 712 in 2011fa, and 741 in
2012fa:
Exam Question 596 What is extra surplus-value? How is it related to relative surplusvalue?

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 231
[582] Samantha: Extra? There could never be enough value. As Hans says in
[2007SP:989], extra surplus value is the technical innovations which have not already been
used in the market by capitalists which will allow the early adopter to fetch extra surplusvalue.
Relative surplus is money made once other capitalists have incorporated the technical
innovation, elimating a single capitalist’s extra surplus value. The innovation can be all sorts
of things. Chris in [2007SP:989] mentions that it “could be new or more efficient methods
of production which decrease production costs”. Once other capitalists incorporate the new
methods they will create competition which will, as Chris mentions, “drive prices down, and
can affect wages.”
Message [582] referenced by [585]. Next Message by Samantha is [761].
[585] Hans: Relative Surplus Value is a Central Concept in Marx’s Theory. Samantha
[582] does not seem to know what relative surplus-value is. The entire chapter Twelve was
devoted to this concept; please read up on it. My [2000fa:170] is an attempt to explain the
terms extra and relative surplus-value well enough that this question here can be answered.
Next Message by Hans is [586].
Term Paper 609 is 515 in 1997WI, 515 in 1997sp, 915 in 1997ut, 915 in 1999SP, 815 in
2002fa, 815 in 2004fa, 815 in 2005fa, 589 in 2007SP, 601 in 2007fa, 613 in 2008fa, 642
in 2009fa, 705 in 2010fa, 725 in 2011fa, and 755 in 2012fa:
Term Paper 609 Essay about Chapter Fifteen: Machinery and Large-Scale Industry
[603] Aaron, Brandon, Goethe, JPeel, Matt, PrivateProperty, and Rmuscolino: Section
1
The Development of Machinery
Machines have driven our lives for centuries. Mankind has evolved from using a needle
and thread to using sewing machines, from telegraphs to e-mail and cell phones. This
continual push to better our lives and production may never stop. It has consumed the true
purpose in which we live, and breathe. We are here to better our lives as individuals through
the means of production, as a true capitalist would say. It is the machine that gives us the
power necessary to accomplish the individual desires that the capitalist is searching for.
Hans: The capitalist is not somebody who tries to satisfy individual desires by machinery, but somebody who tries
to turn money into more money.
The industrial revolution all started with the idea that the faster and more one produces
the cheaper the commodity that has been produced becomes, which is known as surplus
value according to Marx. The machine’s primary purpose is not only to increase production,
but also to decrease the labor time it takes to produce a commodity.
The first inquiry of the machine starts us “in manufacture, the revolution in the mode
of production begins with the labor-power...” according to Marx. He says it is “how the
instrument of labour are converted from tools to machines” and their differences. If a tool
is any object used in the hands of man in the production of labor then it is considered a
tool not a machine. For example; a hammer, nail, level, lever, and wedge are all tools. A
machine however uses not the laborer’s hand, but the forces of nature itself, such as: water,
wind, earth and including animal. For example; creating power with the use of a windmill,
watermill, or the use of steam as power are all considered to be a form of machines.

232 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: Marx rejects the above definition of machinery.
So what does a machine consist of? Well, according to Marx, in order to have a fully
developed machine it must consist of the three different parts listed below:
1) Motor mechanism: Is what puts everything in motion. It must be able to generate its
own power without the help human hands.
2) Transmitting mechanism: It regulates the motion of the working machine. It consists
of all the gears, wheels, pullies, ropes, etc...
3) Tool or Working machine: Is part of the machinery, in which the tools are able to
function.
With these three key parts a machine takes form, by using all the previous tools necessary
to complete the formation of a commodity. Replacing the once before skilled laborers and
their hands on tools. Their two hands are no longer fast enough nor strong enough to produce
the ever growing quantities demanded by the capitalist. Hands on laborer are now obsolete,
and is now either out of a job or an assistant to the machine itself. Making sure the machine
was in prime moving condition at all times.
Hans: Now this is a different definition of machinery than you just said: the human is replaced not as motive
power, but as the one who is holding the tools in his hands.
After deriving the “real definition” of machinery, Marx discusses the development of machinery:
Soon the industrial revolution started and these machines become whole factories producing
an entire product without the use of a single laborer’s hand. With this rapid production
came the need of a better transportation system through vessels, railways and telegraphs.
“Hence the co-operative character of the labour-process is, in the latter case, a technical
necessity dictated by the instrument of labour itself.”
Section 2
The Value Transferred by Machinery to the Product
Is there a capital cost to using the “physical forces” around us? Marx says no. It does not
cost us to use water from a stream or wind from the air, as it does not cost us to find a piece
of gold in a mine. However, in order to make use of these “physical forces” we must build
a machine to capture and produce the power we seek. A water-wheel and a windmill are
examples of machines used for this purpose, which is a costly process according to Marx.
So in order to increase our production levels we must first take on the costly procedures of
building the machines necessary. Is the cost of producing a machine worth it? Marx says,
“given the rate at which machinery transfers its value to the product, the amount of value so
transferred depends on the total value of the machinery.” Whereas the less labor the machine
contains the less value it transfers to the product. Also, the less efficient it is the less value
it passes on the finished commodity according to Marx. So if a machine is not efficient
and it costs as much labor to produce it as it has saved by using the machine, then Marx
says “there is nothing but transposition of labour.” A machine is therefore measured by the
“human labour-power” it replaces. There are a lot of factors involved when determining the
value transferred from a machine to the product. The use of the machine in the first place
is driven by capitalist himself. As he is the one who has caused the need for things not

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 233
previously wanted. The faster and higher the quantity produced the greater the surplus value
that he himself keeps.
Hans: Marx says here something completely different about capitalism, namely, that capitalism prevents the introduction
of much labor-saving machinery because it does not pay the labor its full value.
Here and at the beginning of the section, where Marx said something critical of capitalism, you apparently
filtered it out.
Section 2 (by another member of the group)
The Value Transferred by Machinery to the Product
The influence on machinery in the hand of the capitalists has been overestimated. The
tool is not exterminated by the machine. Machinery does not create a new value, rather
creates its own to the product that it serves. It forms an element in the value of that specific
product, and rather than the product getting cheaper, it’s made better in proportion to the
value of the machine. The systems of machinery are incomparably loaded with value than
the implements used in handicrafts and manufactures. But the production of machinery by
machinery lessens its value relatively to its extension and efficacy. Not only is the framework
of the machine consumed by its numerous operating implements, but the prime mover is
consumed by the numerous operative machines. There is a major difference between the
value of a machine, and the value that is transferred by that machine to its product. The
longer the life of the machine in the labor process, the greater is that difference. The degree
of machines’ productiveness does not depend on the difference between its own value and
the value of the implement it replaces. The difference between the labor a machine costs,
and the labor it saves, doesn’t depend on the value and the value of the product it replaces.
As long as the labor spent on a machine and the portion of its value added to the product,
remains smaller than the value added by the workman to the product with his tool, there is
always a difference of labor saved in favor of the machine.
Hans: Do you expect anyone to understand what you wrote here?
Section 3
THE PROXIMATE EFFECTS OF MACHINERY ON THE WORKMAN
Marx splits this next section into three subsections, each of which serve to describe a
particular way in which the worker is exploited by the use of machinery by the capitalist.
In the first subsection, which is aptly titled “The Employment of Women and Children,”
Marx describes how the entire family is utilized for its labor. As machinery “dispenses with
muscular power,” it becomes a means to employ those with less physical strength, namely
the women and children of the household. Where the value of labor-power was once based
on the value of one worker (the head of household), it is now based on an entire family. Thus
the capitalist gains the additional surplus value of the entire family’s labor.
In England, under what was known as the Factory Acts, children under the age of 13 could
only work a maximum of 6 hours. Factories, therefore had an incentive to hire children at
least 13 years old, or at least children who could pass for that age. Interestingly, many
underage children became “certified,” and, as a result, were subject to the same hours and
standards as adults.

234 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
English parliament established a mandatory system of education for working children
under the age of 14. This system, however, was poorly regulated and was only an auxiliary
institution of the working child’s life. There was no system of accreditation and instructors
were often poorly qualified, even illiterate in some cases.
In the print works it was required that children attend school for a total of 30 days and 150
hours every six months; these requirements were often exploited. For instance, a child often
completed the 30 days and 150 hours in the first month or two, and returned to work for the
remainder of the six month period. This process would simply be repeated next period; as
a result, children were subject to extreme discontinuity in their already-lacking education.
It also put children at a disadvantage in the workplace as they had to adjust back to factory
work. ‘Education’ simply became a cost to firms.
In the next subsection, Marx explains how machinery makes the working day longer.
Machinery depreciates primarily through wear and tear, until it is useless. Machinery also
depreciates in another way, which Marx calls “moral depreciation,” which is just the process
of becoming obsolete as better and more efficient machinery enters the market. In order to
combat this depreciation, it is in the capitalist’s interest to recover the value of the machinery
by working it at an optimal rate in as short a time as possible. As the operation of machinery,
as previously noted, needs human labor-power, long working hours for the machinery means
long working hours for the worker.
When machinery is first introduced in an industry, the “social value” of the product is
higher than its individual value; as newer and better machinery enters the market, the gap
between these two values tightens. During this transitional period, capitalist enjoys substantial
profits, and “capitalizes” on the situation by prolonging the working-day as much as
possible.
Section 4
The Factory
Marx begins this section by defining the factory. The factory is a place where multiple
machines are brought together under a single system. In one sense, the factory is defined
by the labor it contains, that is, the combined efforts of all the workers tending to their
machines. In another sense, one which Marx prefers, the factory is an automaton, in which
its component parts (both mechanical and human) are driven by a self-regulating moving
force, which is capital. In this system, workers give up themselves to their machines, not
just in terms of producing output, but in terms of their skills. The machine has usurped the
workman’s tools and thus his skill in using it.
Marx then proceeds by explaining the division of labor within the factory. The working
group comprises a head workman, who is assisted by a group of attendants. Among these
attendants is a group of “Feeders” which supplies the machines with their fuel. Lastly, is the
technical class, the engineers and mechanics who maintain the equipment. This class has
the fewest members, who are considered the superior workmen.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 235
Marx likens the environment within the factory to the military, where there is a “barracks
mentality,” dividing the operatives and supervisors into “privates” and “sergeants,” respectively.
He makes an additional analogy to slavery, saying that “the slave-driver’s lash is taken
by the overlooker’s book of penalties.” Fines and penalties to wages ensure that workers are
kept in line. For the worker, the factory is a system of enslavement that deteriorates his
health and subjugates him to his machinery and to his masters.
Section 5
THE STRIFE BETWEEN WORKER AND MACHINE
There has always existed a contest between the capitalist and the wage-laborer since the
emergence of capitalism. However, it wasn’t until the industrial revolution that the laborer
found himself fighting a battle against labor itself. Machinery has the ability to perform the
same tasks as human power with greater efficiency and productivity. The laborer, who is
replaced by a device and whose trade has been sacrificed is left with no option but to revolt
against machinery.
The first instance of this that Marx cites is the development of the ribbon-loom; a weaving
machine in which a single person could weave more cloth in a given time than many
other workers. This resulted in massive revolts across Europe, forcing governments to take
regulatory steps to protect workers.
“It was prohibited in Cologne in 1676, at the same time that its introduction into England
was causing disturbances among the workpeople. Also, by an imperial Edict of 19th Feb.,
1685, its use was forbidden throughout all Germany. In Hamburg it was burnt in public by
order of the Senate (Marx).”
The ribbon-loom was only one of the hundreds of industrial inventions that shook the
foundations of labor in nations across Europe and the United States. The worker no longer
has the ability to ‘sell’ his labor to the capitalist, for he cannot compete with the value of
the labor created by machine-power. When a machine, which has more production power
than many workers and only needs to be operated by a few inexperienced people, is entered
into an industrial market the livelihood of laborers is ultimately destroyed. The capitalist
views this as only a ‘temporary inconvenience’ for the worker, who will re-enter the labor
market seeking other avenues of labor-based employment. However, with an every growing
machinery-driven labor market, the laborer’s chances of employment rapidly diminish.
Section 6
THE THEORY OF COMPENSATION AS REGARDS THE WORKPEOPLE DISPLACED
BY MACHINERY
“Political economists insist that all machinery that displaces workmen, simultaneously
and necessarily sets free an amount of capital adequate to employ the same identical workmen
(Marx).” Suppose a capitalist employs 100 workers for production. The introduction of
a machine in his factory will reduce the need of human labor by 50%. This, in turn, saves
the capitalist 50% on wages and the efficiency of the machine is able to generate more products
for sale, thus his profits increase. As profits increase, he is able to upgrade machinery,
resulting in less and less required human labor.

236 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Since the laborer is displaced, he is forced to re-enter the continuously growing labor market,
in which the possibility of finding new work in the industry of his trade becomes more
and more unlikely. During this time, the only industries available were found in mining for
raw materials and the production of machinery itself. A great demand was also created for
the development of nations’ infrastructures. The need for human labor to develop “canals,
docks, tunnels, bridges, and so on...”, helped generate new forms of productions brought
about by the advent of machinery. The amount of laborers employed is directly proportional
to the demand for these new branches of production.
However, Marx deduces that due to the exploitation of labor via machinery, there existed
an unproductive employment of the working class.
“If we deduct from this population all who are too old or too young for work, all unproductive
women, young persons and children, the “ideological” classes, such as government
officials, priests, lawyers, soldiers, etc.; further, all who have no occupation but to consume
the labour of others in the form of rent, interest, etc.; and, lastly, paupers, vagabonds, and
criminals, there remain in round numbers eight millions of the two sexes of every age, including
in that number every capitalist who is in any way engaged in industry, commerce,
or finance.”
Section 7
Repulsion and Attraction of Workers through the Development of Machine Production.
Crisis in the Cotton Industry.
The repulsion and attraction of workers by the factory system is a result of the continued
process of expansion and development of machine production. This is due to the interruptions
of technical progress, as workers are removed from one factory and absorbed by
another. Marx begins this section with the concession of the “respectable representatives of
political economy” as to the harmful effect on the workers who must compete with machinery.
Although they disapprove the “slavery of the factory worker” there is the belief that in
the long run the number of workers will increase. The political economists look at this as
positive for the workers, when in reality the increase in workers is relative to the decrease in
demand for skill needed to produce goods with machinery. Marx has discussed this throughout
the chapter, the point he is making here is the way factories can move workers from place
to place. He further explains that as machines replace the skilled workers, many unskilled
workers will come in to take their place. Marx is making an argument against Mill’s idea
that increase of machines, will result in an increase in the work force make life better for
all workers. What happens is that when factories expand and technologies upgrade, there
is a lag in production, which is the time of expansion and upgrade. This is what will cause
workers to move to another factory, and when the next factory expands workers will move
again. Marx states on pg 582 and 583 “A necessary condition for the growth of the number
of factory workers is thus a proportionally much more rapid growth in the amount of
capital invested in factories.” The apparent growth in workers is in reality the cheapening
of labor; this is the only way to expand and grow and remain profitable. Marx continues
the discussion with a look at the cotton famine of 1862; this gave manufactures the incentive
to exploit the workers by introducing an inferior grade of cotton. The workers were

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 237
used in the experimentation of new forms of cotton production; which put them at risk of
diseases and sickness. To the owners of production; workers were not seen as people but
chattel. They were disposable and easily replaceable; the skills of the past were no longer
a workers greatest asset. We like to think that working conditions have improved but these
conditions exist today in countries all over the world. Modern owners of production use the
same methods from the past to increase their profits. Their way is to keep moving from one
country to another, and keep ahead of worker awareness, (this is the point that Marx was
making) as the factories move workers will move to gain employment. The caveat to this
is when factories move out there is a surplus of displaced workers. This was apparent in
Tijuana after many factories relocated to Indochina in early 2000’s. There were hundreds of
thousands of displaced workers in less than acceptable living conditions, the majority being
women. Marx mentions this as well, females were forced into prostitution.
Section 9
FACTORY ACTS. SANITARY AND EDUCATIONAL CLAUSES OF THE SAME.
THEIR GENERAL EXTENSION IN ENGLAND
Understanding little about machinery and the effects it has on the labor force, we will
notice the advantages we consume and the lives we keep out of danger with a mere sense of
responsibility. This is where the Factory Acts comes into play. The Factory Act is, “a series
of acts passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom to limit the hours worked by women
and children in the textile industry, then later in all industries”. The success of this clause
has proved the possibility of education and the knowledge obtained from the experience of
working in the factory. Thus, meaning that the factory children only did half the amount of
time in school as a full time student, they were still able to obtain just as much information
because they were always working off a fresh mind. This made it possible for the factory
kids to not only have knowledge in the factory, but in the classroom as well.
“This can be accounted for by the simple fact that, with only being at school for one half
of the day, they are always fresh, and nearly always ready and willing to receive instruction.
The system, on which they work, half manual labour, and half school, renders each
employment a rest and a relief to the other; consequently, both are far more congenial to the
child, than would be the case were he kept constantly at one. It is quite clear that a boy who
has been at school all the morning, cannot (in hot weather particularly) cope with one who
comes fresh and bright from his work.”(213). These events happened due to the extreme
and unethical circumstances in the work place. The simple tradition of a hard day’s work
has turned into working too much for too little. It is hard to grasp that concept because we
should believe that having machinery would make tasks easier and shorten the work day, but
in reality has prolonged the average work day due to the excessive amount of production.
In the Modern Industry we have become dependent on machinery, and in some third
worlds it has become a lifestyle. The tradition of working half and half has become more
in the factories in the third world countries, and a lot less in the classroom. Due to the
exploitation many of the children today cannot read or go about a normal day of a modern
day scholar. Robert Owen describes this as, “the germ of education of the future”. Such
acts can bring down a nation and result to a weaker economy. There becomes a competitive

238 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
relationship between the worker and the machine which leads to a dysfunctional working
society.
Section 10
The use of machines on a large scale in the industry advancing age has produced work
that was free from injurious labor, as Marx notes at the beginning of his explanation of
this phenomenon. As noted by factual data, the numbers of workers before and after the
“machine age” and large-scale industry in agriculture remained largely unchanged. As Marx
recognized in the 1860’s, the machines used to produce agriculture and cultivate a much
larger area in terms of land, did not actually expel any agricultural laborers employed. The
need for social transformation in the class system seemed to reach the same climax in the
rural countryside as it did in the capitalistic and more developed townships.
It is easy to see how the new technology of machinery transformed the way the laborers
worked. We have seen this phenomenon in our lifetime as the technology of computers
and computing technology has completely changed the way corporations work and communicate.
With the advent of new technology, the laborer and capitalist are responsible for
innovating new and more efficient ways of working.
Marx delves into a philosophical discussion concerning the capitalist and the population
and how that affects the natural man, the earth and environments, and the physical and
mental life of a worker. Marx argues that as people gather in certain areas of geography, the
“metabolic interaction” between man and earth is then interrupted. Marx says in essence that
the soil of mother earth is prevented from returning to its origins and the eternal and natural
condition of the earth is then interrupted. I am not sure I agree with what Marx is saying here.
Just because a population begins to gather at a certain region, I don’t know if that begins to
destroy the health of the urban worker, and the intellectual health of the rural worker. My
contention is, that a worker who lives in the rural setting, with the benefits of machinery
in mass producing agriculture, will be in a better mental state than the urban worker who is
probably being exploited by the capitalist who might be enslaving and suppressing freedoms
of the laborer. I do agree with a further point from Marx. He correctly points out that the
larger scale of agricultural production, as in the case of the United States, the more rapid
the process of ecological destruction. I don’t think there is any doubt in anyone’s mind of
this fact. It is only logical that the more land that is cultivated, the more destruction to the
land. However, with this point in mind, I think Marx went too far in attempting to diagnose
the physical and mental state of the worker in either the rural or urban environment. A final
comment in agreement with Marx, is that the social process of production in simultaneously
undermining the original source of all wealth- the soil and the worker. When considering
the source of all wealth, I believe Marx has correctly categorized the source as the soil. The
ironic thing in this understanding is that as the producer cultivates and destroys the land on a
large scale with the machinery, he is only destroying the very thing that makes him wealthy.
In conclusion, when considering the large scale industry and the complications that it can
bring into an economy, it can be difficult to deny the ideas of Marx in terms of exploitation
of the worker, slavery, the destruction of the natural resources that make a capitalist wealthy,
and the affects of the value of the products. As value is determined and the trade-off of value

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 239
of workers and machinery occurs, it seems that the biggest concern of Marx is the worker
and what this transition means to him. Much of Marx’s commentary revolves around the
work day, the value of the actual labor, and the overall deterioration of working conditions
for the peasant laborer.
Next Message by Aaron is [737], Next Message by Brandon is [696], Next Message by Goethe is [645], Next
Message by JPeel is [713], Next Message by Matt is [635], Next Message by PrivateProperty is [611], and Next
Message by Rmuscolino is [628].
Term Paper 611 is 917 in 2000fa, 917 in 2001fa, 817 in 2002fa, 817 in 2004fa, 614 in
2007SP, 603 in 2007fa, 644 in 2009fa, and 758 in 2012fa:
Term Paper 611 Essay about Chapter Seventeen: Changes in Wages and Surplus Value
[639] Ande and Ken: For our term paper we have decided to focus on one specific part
of the chapter. We feel as though we will be able to go into more depth on one part of the
chapter rather than trying to write about the entire chapter as whole.
Chapter 17: Changes of Magnitude in the Price of Labour-Power and in Surplus-Value
I. The length of the working day and the intensity of labour constant; the productivity of
labour variable.
The value of labour-power and the magnitude of surplus-value are determined by three
laws. “Firstly, a working day of a given length always creates the same amount of value,
no matter how the productivity of labour, and, with it, the mass of the product and the price
of each single commodity produced may vary.” What this is saying is that depending on
the production of the worker, inept or dexterous, will determine the amount of value the
worker is worth. The worker will not have the same value, the productivity of labor and
the quantity of the product being produced will vary. The productivity value can increase
or decrease depending on the productivity of the worker during the work day. Technical
innovations however can increase the efficiency, by allowing productivity of the worker to
increase. These technical innovations can increase productivity, however if the worker is
inept productivity will show minimal gains. The dexterous worker when given technical innovations
will increase productivity, not only because of the workers work ethic but because
of the innovations.
Hans: When Marx discusses differences in “productivity” in this chapter he does not mean individual differences
between inept or dexterous laborers, but he means differences in the technology of the labor process. He tacitly
assumes that all workers are average workers, or that a sufficient number of workers work together so that their
individual differences cancel out.
“Secondly, the value of the labour-power and surplus-value vary in opposite directions.”
This tells us that if the value of the labour-power increases the surplus-value must decrease
therefore if the surplus-value increases you will see a decrease in the value of the labourpower.
The total value of the working day can be expressed as a constant quantity. The
constant quantity equals the surplus-value plus the value of the labour-power. For example,
if you have two equal variables at your starting point “3 shillings value of labour-power, 3
shillings surplus-value. Then the value of the labour-power cannot rise from three shillings
to four, without the surplus-value falling from three shillings to two; and the surplus-value
cannot rise from three shillings to four, without the value of the labour-power falling from

240 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
three shillings to two.” This example shows us how both the value of the labour-power and
surplus-value are inversely related. It is not possible for the value of labour-power and the
surplus-value to increase or decrease together. As you get more in depth you will find that
as the productivity of labor increases, the surplus-value will increase because labor is being
exploited. In turn you will see a decrease in the value of labour-power. Inversely, if a
decrease in the productivity of labor occurs, the surplus-value will decrease, and the value
of labour-power will increase.
In his studies Marx found that the creator of this law, Ricardo overlooked an important
aspect. “It is true that they increase or diminish by the same quantity. But their proportional
increase or diminution depends on their original magnitude, before the change in the
productivity of labour took place.” An easier interpretation of this could be understood by
saying that the surplus-value and the value of labour-power inversely increase or decrease
simultaneously; however the ratios of change differ. The ratios of change depend on the proportions
in which productivity change. If the proportions of change are small the ratio will
be very minimal, but if the proportions of change are large the ratio will be much greater.
“Finally, increase or decrease in surplus-value is always the consequence, and never the
cause, of the corresponding diminution or increase in the value of labor-power.” What is
being said in this third law is that if a capitalist has the market power to increase margins of
profit, the profits will not be created in the circulation of the product, but in the production
of the product being produced. If the length of the working day is set at a constant, then
an increase in profits can only come from a decrease in the value of the labour-power, and
inversely you will see an increase in productivity. As you read on you come to find out “a
change in the magnitude of the surplus-value presupposes a movement in the value of the
labour-power, brought about by a change in the productivity of labour.” There is a minimum
and maximum amount one worker or firm can earn. There are limitations in which the firm
can cut labor power, and there is a maximum level that workers can continue to provide
labor.
In conclusion, the main problem with Ricardo’s three laws is he fails to acknowledge
several factors; the length of the working day, the intensity of labour and keeping productivity
constant. If one of these three factors changes, Ricardo’s law will no longer be validate
according to Marx. By not acknowledging these factors, the laws can not be used unless all
factors remain constant.
Hans: The above paragraph is a little confused. The three laws you formulate hold if length and intensity are kept
constant and productivity is the only factor that varies. In the other parts of the chapter Marx discusses the situation
that productivity and intensity are constant and the length varies, or that productivity and length are constant and
intensity varies. In these two situations, the above three laws no longer hold.
As a group we decided to read chapter seventeen because of our interest in the price of
labour-power. Chapter seventeen was informative about the changes of magnitude in the
price of labour-power and in surplus-value. Given the amount of information in chapter seventeen
we decided as a group to focus on only one section of the chapter. We decided to
go with the first section because it laid the foundation for the rest of the chapter to build on.
Marx was able to explain how the labor force, the value of the labor-value, and surplus-value
can all co exist in any market place. The chapter also was full of examples and different opinions
Marx had about the theory’s Ricardo had come up with. This chapter is not something

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 241
that you can read once and understand. As a group we feel that the explanations that were
on the class web site helped us understand and get a better understanding of how the market
place can function. The material in chapter seventeen was challenging but it gave the group
a better understanding that helped tie all the loose ends together.
Next Message by Ande is [746] and Next Message by Ken is [672].
[703] Rey: graded B Adding one small insight. The term paper presented regarding the
first portion of chapter seventeen was a good attempt to tackle a difficult subject. With that
being said I think by adding a single sentence taken from the chapter sheds a great amount
of light on what the group is trying to say.
When discussing the topic at hand one must first understand as Marx says, “a working
day of a given length always creates the same amount of value, no matter how the productivity
of labour, and with it, the mass of the product and the price of each single commodity
produced may vary.” Simply stated Marx is saying that the value of a designated working
day stays constant despite the number of commodities produced and the price of those
commodities. What varies is how the value of the working day is distributed among the
commodities. If a productive worker is able to produce 6 of a certain commodity in a day
the value of the working day will be distributed between each of the six commodities. If an
inept worker is only able to produce 3 of that same commodity in one working day, there is
still a working days worth of value in the commodities, but now it is distributed between the
3 instead of the six. So we see that under no circumstance can a change take place in the
magnitude of value in a working day. Further a working day is divided up into two portions.
The value of labour-power and surplus-value. As is stated in the term paper the value of
labour-power and surplus-value move in opposite directions of one another. Understanding
this sets the grounds to see how productivity labor becomes the major variable in determining
the relationship between the value of labour-power and surplus-value. The capitalist
whether consciously aware or not, realizes there is a set value that can be produced during a
designated working day. If a capitalist is able to increase productivity-labor he gains more
surplus-value, enabling him to take more value home with him. So naturally they seek to
make full use of the working day by increasing productivity-labour.
Hans: The point of the termpaper which you resonate with most is exactly the point where the authors made a
mistake. Marx is not talking about individual differences between laborers, but about the development of more
efficient machinery. The difference between effective workers and inept unproductive workers is great, and it can
lead to frictions on the workplace, but it is not the source of the capitalist’s profits. The value created by labor
would be greater than the wages even if all workers were identical twins and worked equally hard and efficiently.
Next Message by Rey is [709].
Question 613 is 77 in 1996ut, 83 in 1997WI, 363 in 1997sp, 361 in 1997ut, 525 in 2002fa,
545 in 2003fa, 599 in 2004fa, 552 in 2005fa, 625 in 2007SP, 605 in 2007fa, 617 in
2008fa, 648 in 2009fa, 711 in 2010fa, 730 in 2011fa, 760 in 2012fa, and 711 in Answer:
Question 613 Your employer gives you your paycheck. How do you know your pay is based
on your labor and not your labor-power (and why does it matter)?
[520] Dyoung: What a Paycheck is? Marx says that even though the worker sells their
labor-power when they accept a new job, the worker is actually being paid according to the
labor he or she performs. So the worker then believes that the paycheck he is receiving

242 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
is paying him for his labor. [Annotations 422] “...One can say that labor is traded as a
commodity which has a price.” The paycheck then becomes a representation of the worker’s
labor, but it is really paying him or her for their labor-power. We have learned that if a
paycheck were to pay you for your full value of labor, there would be no surplus value and
capitalism would not be able to exist anymore.
Labor-power is the source of surplus value for the capitalist. If the laborer realized this he
or she was not being paid for the surplus value that he or she was creating for the capitalist,
the worker would demand a higher wage for less hours of work. I think by receiving a
paycheck the capitalist is trying to disguise the exploitation that is going on by paying the
worker for his labor-power and not for the value of his labor that he is creating for the
capitalist.
Hans: The capitalists are not deliberately disguising something. They are following the laws of demand and supply
for labor. The only thing that is wrong is that the price of labor does not converge towards the value created by labor,
but towards the cost of living of the laborer. Despite the fact that the paycheck of an hourly worker shows the hours
worked and pays accordingly, the commodity traded between capitalist and laborer is the laborer’s labor-power, his
or her ability to work, and the value of this commodity is the laborer’s cost of living.
Next Message by Dyoung is [684].
[522] Ande: You know that your pay is based on your labor because as Marx says, your
paycheck is based on a hourly wage or on your output. You are paid in labor and your
employer pays you a “wage” for your labor work. We know that we are getting paid for our
labor because labor-power is what is sold. The company that is selling a product is paying
you for your labor and selling what you are making or producing for labor-power. You know
this because of the analogy that Marx uses when he talks about being paid in labor, if you
were paid for your labor-power you would be making a lot more money and the company
that is paying you would not make as much money because if they are paying you in laborpower
they could not sell their product of the cost of labor because labor is much cheeper
than that of labor-power. This all matters because its all based off your labor/wage vs your
labor-power/price of whatever you are doing to make a wage. It matters at the employee’s
level because their wage of labor in a sense can go up and down depending on what the
company is able to sell the labor-power to the economy at a certain market price. Overall
labor and labor-power are two totally different things that actually rely on one another to
work and make the business cycle of getting paid for making a product and selling a product
to the consumer.
Hans: You are saying
We know that we are getting paid for our labor because labor-power is what is sold.
It is exactly Marx’s point that we don’t realize that we are selling our labor-power, i.e., our ability to work, rather
than the work itself, because we are getting paid according to the work.
In the rest of your submission the words “labor” and “labor-power” should be interchanged. You may be
interested in [2007fa:435] about this.
Message [522] referenced by [523]. Next Message by Ande is [639].
[523] Srichardson: graded A Understanding your paycheck. The discussion on this
question that is brought up in submission [522] is somewhat confusing to me and I am not
sure if I am reading it incorrectly or if there is some incorrect statements in the submission.
Ande says in [522] that “We know that we are getting paid for our labor because laborpower
is what is sold.”

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 243
I don’t believe that just because labor power is sold it makes it so that you receive your
labor. I believe that it is important to point out here the surplus value between the two; labor
and labor power and this is what goes into the pocket of the capitalist.
Another point I thought was confusing was where Ande says
“This all matters because it’s all based off your labor/wage vs your labor-power/price of
whatever you are doing to make a wage. It matters at the employee’s level because their
wage of labor in sense can go up and down depending on what the company is able to sell
the labor-power to the economy at a certain market price.”
I think that the point of this question was to make you see that these are not connected.
It does not matter if the amount that the company sells your labor-power for, your paycheck
remains the same.
I believe this is very important because it shows that the way to make more money is not
to work more hours. As Hans states in [2005fa:1263] “If the working class wants to improve
their position they have to force the capitalists to spread the payment of their labor-power
over fewer hours every day. They cannot do this individually, they have to organize into
Unions, or take the political action to raise the minimum wage”.
Next Message by Srichardson is [526].
Question 618 is 604 in 2004fa, 557 in 2005fa, 630 in 2007SP, 610 in 2007fa, 717 in
2010fa, 737 in 2011fa, and 767 in 2012fa:
Question 618 Marx says that labor cannot have value because it is the source which gives
everything its value. How can labor give something which it doesn’t have?
[521] Jason: Physics of Labor. After picking this question I read all the previous responses
and was quite overwhelmed by how many of them there were. I think the answer
using the shadow quote has been beaten to death, but for all the people who didn’t read the
old answers I’ll summarize it here, then try another approach.
The quote is “Labor is the cause of value in commodities, but cannot in itself have value:
as the sun is the cause of shadows but cannot in itself have a shadow.” Essentially labor is
like the sun and the shadows are the commodity, but you cannot create shadows without an
object of some kind blocking the sunlight. Using that idea, a commodity cannot be created
by just labor, a means of production is required as well, then the commodity with its value
is created.
I however prefer to use the Engels quote which says, “As an activity creating value, [labor]
can no more have any particular value than gravity can have any particular weight, heat any
particular temperature, electricity any particular strength of current.”
While similar to the shadow quote, it seems to deal with the situation in a more quantitative
manner which I prefer. It wouldn’t make sense for labor to have a value, the measurement
would have to be some kind of abstract concept. If you used time then certain
commodities would surely be created faster than others which were worth more. However
labor, just like the other three examples, can have a specific quantity associated with it when
taken with an additional device. Gravity requires an object with mass before that object

244 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
can have a weight. Heat requires molecules with an average energy before they can have
a temperature. And electricity requires some sort of closed circuit with resistance before
there is a current through it. In this regard, labor requires a means of production before the
commodity can be created and have value. Labor is just one part of the equation required to
make value in the market.
Next Message by Jason is [600].
[525] Bennett: Labor Cannot Have Value. Labor cannot have value in itself for a few
reasons. First labor can obviously produce a product of value but labor itself does not have
value. Labor is needed to produce something but that is not all that is needed, materials
to make the product are needed as well. For example, your toilet it broken and you pay a
plumber to fix it. One would think that you are paying a plumber for his “living labor,” but
you are in reality paying this individual for the final product, a working toilet. The price that
the plumber charges you helps to cover his cost for the materials that he used to fix your
toilet. These materials are the plumber’s means of production, but using these means of
production the value of the fixed toilet is relative to the plumber’s “congealed labor”, rather
than the plumbers “living labor”. The working toilet is his product, which is for sale, not his
labor. It’s just like when you buy anything else, say a pencil, you are buying the product not
the labor that went into producing this item.
Next Message by Bennett is [581].
[622] Jason: When I did this question in class I couldn’t quite remember the entire Engels
quote. Now that I can look it up, here it is in its entirety. “As an activity creating value,
[labor] can no more have any particular value than gravity can have any particular weight,
heat any particular temperature, electricity any particular strength of current.”
In order for labor to create value, it needs a means of production (usually owned by the
capitalist). The worker’s labor combined with the means of production creates a commodity
that has value. What Engels is saying is that labor is just like gravity, heat, or electricity.
All of them need a means before they can have a measured interaction. Gravity requires an
object with mass before it can apply a force/weight to it. Heat must have molecules moving
at an average speed before a specific temperature can be determined. And electricity has to
be pushed over a closed circuit with some resistance before a current can be determined. All
of these are just like labor; they do not have a specific quantity until an extraneous device is
added.
Next Message by Jason is [623].
[690] CousinIt: graded A Labor and Value. Labor does not contain value in and of itself
but rather it is through labor that value is produced and only in its interaction with the means
of production. Nature is free. Things found in nature are made useful (or made ‘valuable’)
through human labor. Thus, such labor-transformed products have value only because of the
socially necessary labor that is put into their production. Thus, labor produces value only in
conjunction with the means of production (or, the materials of nature that are monopolized
by the capitalist). Presumably, Marx says this in order to lay bare the fallacy perpetuated to
the benefit of the owners of the means of production (i.e., the capitalist) that a value can be
placed on labor itself. In capitalism as it exists, the fallacy that labor has a value is necessary
so that the capitalist can purchase the labor-power of the worker under the guise that he is
purchasing the value in discreet units of labor (as a commodity) in exchange for a wage. In

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 245
other words, labor-power must be ‘commodified’ (‘made’ into a ‘commodity’ that can then
be purchased or sold) before a price can be placed on it.
What this amounts to is a ‘hand-is-quicker-than-the-eye’ illusion that makes it possible
for the capitalist to purchase the value that labor produces without paying the full price to
the worker that his labor has produced. In an interesting and sometimes confusing twist,
the worker thinks he is selling his labor, or the value of his labor, when in actuality he is
selling only his labor-power, not realizing that he is short-selling the value produced by his
labor at the price at which the reproduction of his labor-power costs which is much less
than the labor-produced value in the commodity he is producing. The worker does this only
because he thinks that there is value in labor, a value which is a mere fiction. Labor has
no value. Labor produces value. Labor-power costs less than the value produced by labor.
Labor-power is what is really being sold at cost to the capitalist. The capitalist (who owns
the means of production) appropriates the value created by labor (minus the cost of laborpower)
as profit (surplus-value). The laborer thinks his labor is being paid for without seeing
that the value he produced is not and therefore does not recognize that he has been cheated.
Next Message by CousinIt is [773].
[708] Slash: Labor only one part of value. Every day when I go to work it seems as
though I am paid for the labor I perform, because of this I have always thought that my pay
was a surface value of my labor I perform. Marx would say: this could not be, because
labor does not have value. This would mean the price of labor is the reproduction cost of my
work, not the labor itself. Labor is only one of two parts necessary to make value. The other
part would be means of production. The best example of the sun: The sun is only one part
in the making of a shadow, the other being the object which blocks the sun’s light in term
making the shadow, but the sun itself has no shadow and is only able to make a shadow in
coordination with another object, i.e. (Means of production in the case of labor.)
Next Message by Slash is [775].
[709] Rey: graded A Labor cannot have value because it is, as the question states, the
source of all value. Marx uses the example of a 12-hour working day to illustrate his point.
He tells us that it would be an “absurd tautology” to determine the value of a “12 hour
working day by the 12 working hours contained in a working day of 12 hours.” An analogy
that has been commonly used to illustrate how labor is able to give something it doesn’t
itself have, namely value, is the same way the sun has the ability to cast a shadow. There
are no shadows within the sun itself, as it is the source of all light. But it still has the ability
to create a shadow when it interacts with other objects. Likewise labor is the source of all
value, but as such has no value itself. When it interacts with raw materials a synergistic
process produces value in commodities. Evidence of the idea that labor itself contains no
value is explained thoroughly by Hans, “If labor had value, i.e., if labor were something that
could be exchanged on the market, then there would be no need to exchange other products
since they all derive from labor.” Simply put it is the source’s interaction with something
outside itself that enables it to produce something it does not possess itself.
Next Message by Rey is [721].
[763] Samantha: Shadows occur and value is bestowed. Labor would not be able to
give value if it had it, because then value would just be a component of labor. As Chris
in [2007SP:1116] stated “The Sun cannot have a shadow, yet it is the cause for everything

246 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
else to have a shadow.” Labor is the beginning of the entire process of producing, it gives
any material value by changing it, whether it is taking it out of the ground, refining it, or
working with it, just like the sun gives a shadow by merely shining. Value is determined
by the amount of labor-power to produce any good in the market, at every stage in that
production process. The reason that prices are so low is because consumers don’t have the
same understanding of value, instead believing the value to either be the use-value of the
exchange rate.
Next Message by Samantha is [778].
Question 619 is 490 in 2001fa, 529 in 2002fa, 550 in 2003fa, 606 in 2004fa, 558 in
2005fa, 611 in 2007fa, 622 in 2008fa, and 766 in 2012fa:
Question 619 Why is it an absurd tautology to say that the value of a 12-hour working day
is determined by the 12 working hours contained in it?
[518] Sparky: the total of 12 hours of work. “As an act of creating
value, [labor] can no more have any particular value than gravity can have
particular weight, heat any particular temperature, electricity any particular
strength of current.” Engels – Capital II p. 101:2 [Annotations p. 455]
The Engels quote above from Capital is stating that the question of how can something
which is used to qualitatively describe something become a numerical measure of the object
that is in question, is an impossibility! The simple answer to this question is that labor does
not create value, so you cannot use labor to describe the price of the commodity. Labor
creates value that is true, but labor is not something that can be saved in a vault and used
when in time of need, Labor does not work that way, it is not a means of storing value. The
capitalist system, which thrives on its ability to taking more of the value its workers create
than that which they “pay” them is crucial to this misunderstanding. In reality the worker
who worked twelve hours was only paid a fraction of what he really created, but this only
shows how labor can create value.
Message [518] referenced by [519]. Next Message by Sparky is [528].
[519] Hans: It should be a matter of course, but it isn’t. Why not? The statement “a
tree is a tree” is a tautology. In a modern dictionary, “tautology” is defined as a statement
that cannot be false. The philosopher Hegel had a different take on it which you should mull
over because it is quite interesting. According to Hegel, the statement “a tree is a tree” is a
contradiction, because you start out saying something, and then you end up saying nothing.
This is of course part of the Hegelian pastime to find the opposite in everything: even if
you start with the truest possible statement, a statement that cannot be false, you are still
immersed in falsehood, because you pretend to say something while saying nothing.
Just like Hegel, Marx was a dialectical thinker. Just like Hegel, he did not consider
tautologies to be the opposite of being false, but the idea that tautologies can be false or
“absurd” is not alien to him. But while Hegel uses the introspection of deep thinking to look
for the reason why a tautology is absurd, Marx looks at the structure of capitalist society.
At Marx’s time, the labor theory of value was part of mainstream economics. Someone
who thinks that the labor theory of value correctly describes market economies would expect
the following: if a worker is willing to work for 12 hours, then the market will give that

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 247
worker access to 12 hours’ worth of labor by others. Marx means this naive expectation
when he calls it a tautology that the value of 12 hours of labor is 12 hours of labor. Alas, in
our society this expectation is wrong. Why? Because it overlooks the basic fact that in our
society, the workers are separated from the means of production. The means of production,
the resources which support our labor, are monopolized by others who prey on our labor.
That is why the workers do not get the full benefit of their labor.
Only if it is a tautology that the workers control the means of production will it follow,
tautologically, that the workers are the beneficiaries of their labor. We live in a society in
which the workers do not control the means of production. We are so immersed in that false
state of affairs that we do not even notice that we are cut off from something which should
be our birth right. But the laughter of the capitalists all the way to the bank is too loud to be
missed.
This was a difficult question. If you give it a honest try, using the theoretical framework
provided in this class, and miss it, I cannot give you a bad grade, and my feedback will
emphasize the things you are doing right rather than those you missed. But if someone
seeks out subtle and difficult questions several times, and just keeps throwing arguments at
them in the hope one of them will stick, as Sparky did with [66], [170], and [518], then my
reaction is: show me that you can walk before you are trying to run.
Next Message by Hans is [534].
Question 621 is 633 in 2007SP, 613 in 2007fa, 625 in 2008fa, 656 in 2009fa, 719 in
2010fa, and 739 in 2011fa:
Question 621 If labor cannot have value, does this mean labor is not a commodity?
[527] Jenn: graded A labor is not a commodity. In [2007fa:451], Hans states that in
this question, he wishes us to follow Marx’s argument (rather than a textbook definition of a
commodity) to determine whether or not labor is a commodity. In section 2.2b, Marx states
all commodities are non-use-values for the owners, and use-values for their non-owners. It
is impossible to remove the social aspect that labor is actually expenditure of the worker’s
time and energy. To state that a worker’s labor is a non-use-value is quite arguable by any
human being. Can any person state that an hour of their time and energy is a non-use-value
to them? I think not. However, if you further narrow down the worker’s labor to a particular
type of useful labor, such as shoemaking, one could argue that the worker may not have any
more use for their shoe-making labor. This defies the statement that labor is a commodity,
and further supports Marx’s argument that labor-power, not labor, is the commodity sold on
the capitalist market.
Hans: Very interesting argument.
Next Message by Jenn is [532].
Question 623 is 227 in 1995ut, 302 in 1997WI, 368 in 1997sp, and 366 in 1997ut:
Question 623 Marx argues that labor is something that cannot have value, on very fundamental
grounds. Reproduce these arguments in your own words. Are they convincing to
you?

248 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
[627] Kevin: graded A Labor itself cannot have value because it is what creates value in
other commodities. Were labor to have value it would be traded as a commodity, but it is
not. Marx uses the example of the Sun not having a shadow. While the sun has no shadow
it creates the shadow everything else has. It is the source of the shadow just as labor is the
source of value.
This is a convincing argument to me and makes perfect sense. Like at night without a
sun, objects have no shadow. This is the same, without labor nothing has value.
Next Message by Kevin is [781].
[755] Clayon: On the surface Marx seems to contradict himself, for he declares that a
good’s value is directly related to labor input. It seems natural to assume that labor is traded
as a commodity which has a price. If this were true, we could say that labor does in fact
have a value. But Marx counters this with some abstract ideas that simply put declare that
something that gives another thing value cannot have value itself. It is rather difficult to
comprehend without the aid of an everyday example. One of your students previously wrote
“Labor is the cause of value in commodities, but cannot in itself have value; as the sun is the
cause of shadows but cannot in itself have a shadow.” Another analogy could be as follows:
Candy given to a young child creates joy for that child, yet the candy itself does not have
joy. So it is with labor and its relationship to value.
Although I agree with Marx that Labor does not have value in the sense that we have
defined it as, I still feel that labor does have some “worth” for it is needed, and beneficial in
the production process. So although it may not have value in the typical sense, it cannot be
said that it is use-less, or without use-value.
Hans: Yes, labor has use-value. Use-value and value are two very different things.
Next Message by Clayon is [871].
[759] Ken: labor and value. “If labor had value, i.e., if labor were something that could
be exchanged on the market, then there would be no need to exchange other products since
they all derive from labor”. Labor gives everything value, therefore labor cannot have value.
Labor is not the commodity being sold by the worker, it is actually labor-power.
I would agree with Marx’s argument. I do not think that labor can have value, labor-power
on the other hand can.
Next Message by Ken is [780].
Question 644 is 223 in 1995WI, 235 in 1995ut, 261 in 1996sp, 313 in 1997WI, 385 in
1998WI, 388 in 1999SP, 480 in 2000fa, and 509 in 2001fa:
Question 644 In a speech which was later published as the pamphlet called Value, Price
and Profit, Marx says that there is no such thing as a fair wage. What does he mean by this?
[438] Goethe: What is my value? This was originally submitted as a contribution to the
free discussion, and you get credit for it as such. But for the archives, Hans re-classified it
and its responses under question 644.
I am sitting here thinking about value and it comes to me that I am a commodity!!! So, I
ask myself what is my value? I am an intelligent person with certain marketable skills, but
I still think that I am undervalued. As my thought process continues it occurs to me that
like other commodities I have been purchased for my use value, this is of course a relative

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 249
value in accordance to the perception of my employer (or supervisor of the moment). The
more I think about this the more I am feeling used and (not to sound to Marxist) exploited. I
have started a new job where for the first time in years I am punching a time clock, and not
working for commission. Now this is where it gets interesting the services I perform charge
a commission to the customer, but I do not see this. I am told that I am compensated by the
hourly wage. This is a bunch of pooh!!! Next my employer tells me that my school schedule
could conflict with my new work schedule (this was discussed prior to my accepting the
position) the options that were given to me were to drop school and concentrate on my job;
“After all which is more important my job or my education?” I don’t need to tell you all my
answer, but needless to say it did not go over well.
This is the second time I have encountered this situation from an employer.... Go figure!!
What do these people want? Mindless drones to do their bidding!!!
I am convinced that our system is way out of alignment!!! The manager wants to keep
others from advancing and their managers want to keep them from advancing... this continues
in a downward spiral...
What did Marx think of this? And what was his conclusion? I have an Idea but I would
like some feedback before I give my opinion...
Thank you for the opportunity to vent
Message [438] referenced by [441], [446], and [451]. Next Message by Goethe is [456].
[441] Trailrunner: You are not a Value, but an Input. Actually Goethe [438] you are
a part of the Labor Process - the laborer. Your boss, the Capitalist, has gathered you up as
an input along with other items, to create a desired product. And in the end, there is no usevalue
to you of the product you are creating, as this use-value simply goes to your Capitalist
boss. You are given your value, by the wage that you are paid and if you happen to work
extra hard, then your boss reaps the benefits as surplus-value. Sounds like a pretty grand
idea if you happen to be the Capitalist boss!!
Aside from what Marx might think, I feel your pain. After living in Salt Lake for 6
years, I am finally earning what I earned in California nine years ago (I received a raise a
week ago). I am still many dollars away from what I was earning seven years ago prior to
moving up here. I, like you, feel as if I am undervalued and this has taken me to a place
of wondering what part I might have in this. Am I pursuing positions that keep me in my
low paying status? Or is it simply the fact that I “live in Utah and the cost of living is so
much lower, so I get paid less” as everyone continues to tell me? For me, my expenses are
essentially the same, so I’m not really buying that.
The one advantage I have is that I am employed by the University and therefore receive
a tuition reduction. Without this, I would not be able to finish my degree (the wage that I
am being paid is a HUGE factor in this). I am lucky in that my boss sees the value in my
finishing my education and grants me the time to take my classes as long as I get my 40
hours a week in.
I agree with you that the system is out of alignment and I find this especially potent
when it comes to having a government job. I give you kudos for continuing to make your
education a priority and send good wishes that upon your completion, you’ll land a position

250 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
that will allow you to say “pooh” to all those that have continued the downward spiral of
advancement.
Message [441] referenced by [451]. Next Message by Trailrunner is [449].
[446] CousinIt: What do these people want? Mindless drones? In response to Goethe’s
[438] question;
The answer to the question is, YES! They do want people who will accept their position as
a member of the underclass and they do want them to be left without any means of effective
resistance or advancement. If you equal or surpass their accomplishments, or are doing
anything that would facilitate this, you become a personal-social-economic threat to them
and their illusion of security. Alas, (this course being an exception) even your education is
penultimately just all about training you to fit into the system and not primarily aimed at your
overall enlightenment/intelligence/effective democratic participation as a critically-engaged
citizen. You are a consumable disposable consumer. You must find an occupation that the
system you are embedded in deems to be of use-value for the system that creates you, that
commodifies you. For all intents and purposes, in this society, this is the measure of your
value....period.
Marx would say that the problems you are facing come as a result of the fact that you do
not own the means of production and are thus situated within a complex set of class relations
which compell you to either accept the oppressive, restrictive conditions you are offered or
suffer the economic consequences and all of the subsequent social and health consequences,
to yourself and your family, of your faulty response to your employment dilemma. You,
like everyone else, are forced into a condition of ever-present economic terror that no one
seems able to counter because of the structure of the society you live in, its ideological
investments, assumptions, and characteristic psychoses (much like the ‘global warming’
that we apparently can do nothing to stop, even though we know what is causing it).
Your manager probably ‘classifies’ himself as being above you. He may have an education
and/or he may have reached his position through work experience or simple doledprivilege
(he has a daddy, a mommy, a girlie, or a buddy or he is particularly socially-situated
so as to be given his position as your ‘manager’). He probably, like you, does not own the
means of production, yet imagines to himself that he is a capitalist, nonetheless. You both
live in a capitalist system, and perhaps imagine that you are capitalists-by-association, but
there is an important fact that is being over-looked. Chances are neither of you owns the
means of production necessary to compete with the other owners in the race to amass vast
stocks of material wealth (and social power/privilege derived from class position).
You are probably a member of the exploited labor class and are most likely to die without
any real change in your status as such and you are not alone in this.
As long as people buy into the notion that it is OK to exploit and objectify others as
commodities, as use-values, and as long as such violence and crime against humanity is
justified as ‘normal’ or as ‘human nature,’ then nothing will be done about the violence that
economic terror does to our lives. Marx knew that two things would have to happen in order
for you and me to get out from under the yoke of an abusive wage-slavery system.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 251
Capitalism must reach its material, environmental, technical, spiritual, and intellectual
limits and be unable to deal with or overcome them by way of capitalist conventions, methods,
or ideological approaches
and
The people who are being exploited by the system (which, because of the fetish-like
character of the commodity as primary relational unit, includes the owners as well as the
workers) would have to have some sort of shift or metamorphosis of consciousness as to how
they view and address their real material relations such that they, as a whole, are compelled
to do away with the system that enslaves them, i.e., to bring about the necessary proletarian
revolution (via democracy or via crisis) which hasn’t happened yet.
I guess we’ll wake up when we’re darned good and ready to...hope it’s not too late....maybe
we need to BUY a BIGGER BETTER alarmclock....
Message [446] referenced by [451] and [456]. Next Message by CousinIt is [448].
[451] Hans: We are producers, not products. The schoolbook answer to the above
question is: there is no such thing as a fair wage because the wage relationship itself is
unfair. Marx expected the class struggles to evolve to the point where workers are no longer
fighting for higher wages but for the abolition of the wage labor system itself, and fight for
a system where they no longer have to sell their labor.
I always thought this was a rather theoretical view with not much practical significance.
Whenever I tried to imagine workers fighting against the wage labor system, a scene in an
old flick came to my mind in which the boss says to the employee: “You are against wage
labor? So am I. You are fired.”
But Goethe’s [438] revolves exactly around the quality of the wage labor relation, not just
the quantity of wages. If the boss says that the job is more important than education, this
shows that the employee is not valued as a person but only as a commodity, an input into
production.
Goethe’s musings “what is my value?” can be answered in two ways. On the one hand,
I agree that Goethe’s value is greater than what he is paid. But on the other hand, even if
Goethe got paid much more, I think this question should not have to be asked. Whether
Goethe is marketable or not should not matter. Society should be organized in such a way
that Goethe, and everybody else, is considered an end in himself, not a means to an end. We
should be the measuring stick, not that what is being measured.
Trailrunner’s answer in [441] “you are not a value” is meant in this way (if I understand
it right): you are not considered an end in yourself, but a means to an end. But instead of
continuing “you are only an input into the production process” (not a literal quote), I would
turn it around and say: “I am not a product that needs to be valued, but I am a producer that
creates value economically, and that creates social relations in which everybody is respected
politically and morally.”
In response to the two points at the end of CousinIt’s [446], I would add a third point,
namely, the need to organize. In order to change society people have to work together with
many others, this cannot be done on an individual or small scale basis. Someone in this

252 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
class contacted me because they wanted to form a Marxist student organization. I think this
is a good idea. I have lived through a time in 1968-70 when there was a strong student
movement. These were exciting times, and we seem to be at the beginning of another wave
of student activism. If you want me to give that person your email address, please contact
me privately at ehrbar@lists.econ.utah.edu
Next Message by Hans is [469].
Term Paper 648 is 683 in 2009fa:
Term Paper 648 The Vintage edition of Capital p. 681 has here the following reference:
Wealth of Nations, Bk I, Ch. 8, ‘Of the Wages of Labor’. I read this chapter and did not find
an obvious place where Smith said this. If you can identify the place in Smith which Marx
refers to here, this is a piece of research which I would count as a term paper.
[783] Allen and Jason: Marx’s reference to Adam Smith: This circumstance misled
Adam Smith, who treated the working day as a constant quantity,9 into the opposite assertion
that the value of labor is constant, although the value of the means of subsistence may vary,
and the same working day, therefore, may represent more or less money for the worker.
9. Adam Smith only incidentally alludes to the variation of the working day, when he is
dealing with piece-wages.*
*In Wealth of Nations, BK I, Ch. 8, ‘Of the Wages of Labour’
After reading the chapter several times we found this paragraph on p. 34, towards the end
of the chapter, that we think Marx is referring to.
The liberal reward of labour, as it encourages the propagation, so it increases the industry
of the common people. The wages of labour are the encouragement of industry, which,
like every other human quality, improves in proportion to the encouragement it receives. A
plentiful subsistence increases the bodily strength of the labourer, and the comfortable hope
of bettering his condition, and of ending his days perhaps in ease and plenty, animates him
to exert that strength to the utmost. Where wages are high, accordingly, we shall always find
the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious, than where they are low; in England,
for example, than in Scotland; in the neighbourhood of great towns, than in remote country
places. Some workmen, indeed, when they can earn in four days what will maintain them
through the week, will be idle the other three. This, however, is by no means the case with
the greater part. Workmen, on the contrary, when they are liberally paid by the piece, are
very apt to over-work themselves, and to ruin their health and constitution in a few years. A
carpenter in London, and in some other places, is not supposed to last in his utmost vigour
above eight years. Something of the same kind happens in many other trades, in which the
workmen are paid by the piece; as they generally are in manufactures, and even in country
labour, wherever wages are higher than ordinary. Almost every class of artificers is subject
to some peculiar infirmity occasioned by excessive application to their peculiar species of
work. Ramuzzini, an eminent Italian physician, has written a particular book concerning
such disease. We do not reckon our soldiers the most industrious set of people among us.
Yet when soldiers have been employed in some particular sorts of work, and liberally paid
by the piece, their officers have frequently been obliged to stipulate with the undertaker, that

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 253
they should not be allowed to earn above a certain sum every day, according to the rate at
which they were paid. Till this stipulation was made, mutual emulation and the desire of
greater gain, frequently prompted them to over-work themselves, and to hurt their health
by excessive labour. Excessive application during four days of the week, is frequently the
real cause of the idleness of the other three, so much and so loudly complained of. Great
labour, either of mind or body, continued for several days together, is in most men naturally
followed by a great desire of relaxation, which, if not restrained by force or by some strong
necessity, is almost irresistible. It is the call of nature, which requires to be relieved by some
indulgence, sometimes of ease only, but sometimes too of dissipation and diversion. If it is
not complied with, the consequences are often dangerous, and sometimes fatal, and such as
almost always, sooner or later, bring on the peculiar infirmity of the trade. If masters would
always listen to the dictates of reason and humanity, they have frequently occasion rather
to moderate, than to animate the application of many of their workmen. It will be found, I
believe, in every sort of trade, that the man who works so moderately, as to be able to work
constantly, not only preserves his health the longest, but, in the course of the year, executes
the greatest quantity of work.
http://books.google.com/books?id=70759KjSs0sC&dq=adam smith the wealth
of nations volume 1&pg=PA34
Since Adam Smith only alludes to the variation of the working day, we think this is where
Marx is referencing. Throughout the chapter Smith does not show variation in the workday,
but in the above paragraph he says, “Some workmen, indeed, when they can earn in four
days what will maintain them through the week, will be idle the other three.” This implies
that the workday is not constant. Smith then mentions that when “Workmen. . . are liberally
paid by the piece, are very apt to over-work themselves. . . ,” this specifically discusses the
piece-wages in which Marx is referencing. In conclusion, this paragraph seems to be the
only place in this chapter Marx cited about Adam Smith.
Hans: Piece wages are also discussed on pp. 35 and 51, but the paragraph you quote seems to be the main place
on piece wages.
Next Message by Allen is [786] and Next Message by Jason is [830].
Question 655 is 668 in 2007SP, 646 in 2007fa, 659 in 2008fa, 690 in 2009fa, 754 in
2010fa, 776 in 2011fa, and 805 in 2012fa:
Question 655 Why a separate chapter about the time wage? Wasn’t the time wage already
discussed in chapter Nineteen?
[548] Papageorgio: Got to Keep em Separated. Yes time wage was discussed in chapter
19 but just because it was discussed does that mean it was fully covered. Many things
are discussed in various chapters but it is necessary in many cases to go further in depth.
Regarding time wage we must go further in depth to discuss the forms wages take on as
piece wage and time wage. Chapter 20 gives us depth on time wages structure. I know this
in part by the annotations in the beginning of chapter 20 it tells us this on page 480 paragraph
2, “knowing the essence behind the wage form does not yet fully define the shapes which
this form can assume”. So we must read chapter 20 to find out more for example such things

254 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
as that time wage has built in tendencies to extend the length of the workday and that the
time wage tries to be independent of other mechanisms.
Hans: If you take the phrase “going further in depth” seriously, then chapter 19 is the one which goes into depth,
while chapters 20 and 21 take a more thorough look at the surface. Marx says that it is not enough to go into the
depth, i.e., to decipher what is behind the surface forms of the wage of labor, but that it is also worth while to look
at the surface forms themselves, in order to see how these surface forms lead to intensification of labor, wage theft,
whether they foster competition or unity between the workers, etc.
I didn’t write in the Annotations that the time wage tries to make itself independent of other mechanisms, but
of those mechanisms which define it. With this I meant for instance that time wages can fall although the price of
labor-power remains constant (if the worker has to work longer for the same wage) etc.
Message [548] referenced by [2009fa:785], [2009fa:805], and [2012fa:1052]. Next Message by Papageorgio is
[663].
[550] Aaron: Time wages. The reason that there will be a separate discussion on time
wages, in addition to the discussion in previous chapter 19, is because chapter 19 simply
discussed the price of labor, which is not determined by the value of labor. As Hans noted at
the beginning of chapter 20, chapter 19 established a connection between the price of labor
on the surface as well as the underlying connection with production. Time wages are meant
to extend the workday to a maximum effort of 24 hours per human worker. The time wage
is used to trade a worker for his means of production using the function of time as a trade
medium. If a worker works x amount of time, then he his paid y wage. Regardless of what
he accomplishes during his work time.
Hans: The following sentence is a little garbled: “chapter 19 established a connection between the price of labor
on the surface as well as the underlying connection with production.” I tried to say that chapter 19 looks at the
connection between the price of labor on the surface and the relations of production underneath, while chapter 20
looks at the surface itself.
Time wages are not meant to extend the workday, but they have an inbuilt structure which tends to extend the
workday. (This is one of the results of the investigation which stays on the surface.)
Next Message by Aaron is [551].
[557] Ken: Why should we separate them? In chapter 19 Marx discusses the wage of
labor. The wage of labor is based on labor performed. The worker is paid for the labor
performed not for his labor power. Marx argues that the worker is selling his labor power
however the worker is actually given a wage based on labor. This situation maximizes the
capitalist’s benefits. The worker is being exploited because the capitalist is paying a minimal
wage for the great amount of labor being acquired. Chapter 20 and 21 discuss time wage
and piece wage. Time wage and piece wage describe and define the structure of wage.
Hans: Your sentence “the worker is paid for the labor performed not for his labor power” is misleading. The
worker sells his labor-power and is paid for his labor-power, i.e., the total amount of wages compensates him for
the reproduction cost of his labor-power. But the payment looks as if it was a payment for his labor. The weekly
value of his labor-power is spread out over 40 hours and is paid according to hours worked. This is why, as you say,
the worker only gets a minimal wage in exchange for a great amount of labor. This is not the capitalist bending the
rules in their favor, but this is the working of the market in a situation where the capitalists monopolize the means
of production.
Next Message by Ken is [639].
Question 662 is 674 in 2007SP, 652 in 2007fa, 666 in 2008fa, 697 in 2009fa, 761 in
2010fa, 783 in 2011fa, and 812 in 2012fa:
Question 662 How can the price of labor be reduced even without changing the weekly
pay?

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 255
[536] Jeremy: Reason behind salary offering. From the capitalist perspective, there is
a method in which they are able to create surplus value without having to increase pay for
labor given. In modern days, workers are increasingly being extended the offer to receive
a salary. A salary is a concrete weekly, or more commonly, yearly gross income which the
employee will receive regardless of the hours of labor given. From the capitalist’s view, they
are offering more money than what would normally be given to an hourly pay employee.
The appeal to the laborer is that they will receive more income than if they were an hourly
employee working 40 hours per week (under modern working conditions and expectations).
The salaried employee does not receive the option of overtime pay. This is where the capitalist’s
opportunity lies. Once a laborer becomes committed to a salary, the employer may
increase the desired work hours in a day. The salary is locked in place, so no additional
money would be earned by the laborer, yet the employer receives the benefit of additional
hours of labor input. This is the method by which capitalists create surplus value. Surplus
value is created when the length of the working day is extended, but the wages are frozen.
The more working hours input by the laborer creates a larger margin of profit for the capitalist.
Hans: Marx would say: this is a situation where the surplus-value is plain to see; but even in situations in which
each hour is paid, even with overtime premium, there is surplus-value as well.
Message [536] referenced by [540]. Next Message by Jeremy is [640].
[540] Trailrunner: graded A The Working Day and Hourly Wages. In response to
Jeremy [536], I agree with much of what he has said, but I also question one particular point.
I question whether a salary being offered is “offering more money than would normally be
given to an hourly pay employee.” In my own experience, this has not been the case, as it
has been essentially an equivalent pay (a bit more vacation time is earned during each pay
period as a salaried employee) with more hours expected. What actually did change was the
job title.
In a previous job, I worked with a group of three Supervisors who were paid by an
hourly wage. All three of these supervisors worked overtime occasionally, but one of these
individuals worked overtime every single day. In fact, he worked so much overtime, that he
ended up making more in his overtime hours, than he did in his normal 40 hour workweek.
It is absolutely true that had these individuals been placed on a salary, they would have lost
all of the overtime pay, but they would have in no way been paid more on a salary than they
would have in their basic 40 hour workweek.
The use of the policy of overtime in this case, is an excellent example of a missed opportunity
by a company, to gain a tremendous amount of surplus labor by putting these individuals
on a salaried wage. If the reality is that “regular pay is depressed, so that the workers are
forced to work longer because they depend on overtime pay,” as stated by Marx in 20.2.b.,
then this would explain why so much overtime was paid out. Having worked very closely
with these individuals though, I know that their wage was comparable to others with similar
jobs and I question whether that rate is depressed or not. As well, because these individuals
worked for the state, they received an additional accrual of vacation and sick days because
of all of the hours worked, thus receiving an added benefit.
The above situation is contrary to the question asked of the “price of labor being reduced
even without changing the weekly pay.” Had these individuals been placed on a salaried

256 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
wage, it would have been a good example of how the question can be made into a reality. I
believe that if a salaried wage was in place, there would have been a great deal less overtime
put in, much of which was created simply to earn the extra income anyway. The extra hours
would have then resulted in the price of labor being reduced without a change in weekly pay.
Hans: Are you saying the state is not as adept at exploiting its employees as private capitalists?
Message [540] referenced by [2008fa:885] and [2009fa:820]. Next Message by Trailrunner is [606].
Question 663 is 675 in 2007SP, 653 in 2007fa, 667 in 2008fa, 698 in 2009fa, 762 in
2010fa, 784 in 2011fa, and 813 in 2012fa:
Question 663 Is it true that the laborer is only interested in what he receives, i.e., the overall
daily wage income, and not interested in what he gives, i.e., the overall daily labor?
[539] Trailrunner: graded A Labor for money or labor for satisfaction? A laborer
can be said to only be interested in what he receives when looking at the fact that what the
laborer in actually interested in, is ensuring that he can earn enough income to survive. I
sat in a class this past week when someone was asked what they expected in a wage. This
individual stated that he looked only at what his monthly expenses were and determined
what he wanted to earn based solely upon his monthly expenses. This answer would seem
to validate what Marx has stated. Thus the answer to the question would be that it is true.
To me, this answer looks only at the intellectual response based upon what Marx has
stated in his writings. I would wonder though at the emotional response someone might
give. I believe that it is true, that many people look only at the wage received in comparison
to what someone else in the same profession would make and whether they can pay their
bills or not. But I also believe that some people look at how a job makes them feel, what it
is that they are giving emotionally, as well as receiving emotionally.
I have recently changed from an hourly wage to a salaried wage in my primary job and I
have found my feelings toward my work effort to have changed just a bit. Recognizing that
a wage is paid with the idea that a quantity of unpaid labor is included in this wage, when I
was working on an hourly wage, I felt a need to fill each hour with my giving of useful labor.
I also knew that I would receive overtime if I were to go over my 40 hours a week, even by
a few minutes, thus I felt I was receiving some sort of benefit for my efforts.
Now that I am working for a salaried wage, I do not find quite as much need to fill every
hour. When I was switched over to a salaried wage, I was told that there was an expectation
that I would now be working overtime on a regular basis without being paid for it. This has
affected my desire to give, in that I don’t feel the need to push myself quite as hard as I did
before. There are some other factors that have brought about this feeling, but recognizing
that I will no longer receive overtime, I feel that everything will balance out in the long run,
if I come in a bit late, or leave a bit early.
Thus, I find this question quite applicable in my life at the moment as I try to balance
whether I care only about what I receive versus what I give. At the same time, I look at the
numerous hours I give in volunteer work in which I receive no wage in return, but receive
a tremendous amount in the overall daily labor that I give. Because of the emotional wellbeing
that I receive by giving in this case, I am always willing to give a little bit more. While
it is my personality to give all that I possibly can to my employer and that I take a tremendous

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 257
amount of pride in a job well done, I am searching for the balance between receiving and
giving in my primary job.
It might also be valuable to note that I have a second job where I know that I am valued
very highly and that the individuals that I work for desire to pay me a wage that reflects
their trust in me and my skills, as well as letting me know that there is no expectation of
me providing free (or unpaid) labor. Because of the dynamics of this working relationship,
when I work for these individuals, I give the work of two people in order to get the job done
quickly while striving to show my appreciation for the great way that they treat me. I am
allowed to come and go as I please, because these people know that I will get the job done
and they do not have to worry at all about any of the finances associated with their business.
In this case, I am interested in what I receive, but I am also extremely interested in what I
give.
My guess is that there are many people who are interested only in what they receive, but
there are also many people that care about what they give.
Next Message by Trailrunner is [540].
Question 665 is 677 in 2007SP, 669 in 2008fa, 700 in 2009fa, 764 in 2010fa, 786 in
2011fa, 816 in 2012fa, and 764 in Answer:
Question 665 In a system of hourly wages without a set daily minimum of hours, Marx says
that “the connection between the paid and the unpaid labor is destroyed.” Explain what he
means by this.
[532] Jenn: graded A– hourly wage system changes paid:unpaid labor ratio. In chapter
20.2, Marx says that an hourly-wage system destroys the connection between the paid and
unpaid labor. In [2007SP:908], Moose explained well the challenges the worker experiences
when the capitalist has the right to adjust working hours at any time without notice. I believe
the connection Moose is missing is that the capitalist then has the option to pay the worker
based on useful labor rather than labor power. The worker chooses to sell their commodity,
labor-power, at a wage that is calculated based on their needs for subsistence. In many
cases, the worker understands that some of their labor is paid, and some of their labor (the
surplus-labor) is unpaid (although Marx believes that the actual understanding is masked).
However, if the worker is paid hourly, the capitalist is paying the worker for their actual
labor, not their labor-power, as initially agreed upon. The disconnect lies in the calculation
of paid:unpaid labor ratio will be based on useful labor in an hourly wage setting, where the
paid:unpaid labor ratio would have been based on labor-power in a fixed-hour setting. Marx
would probably use this disconnect, or ratio change, to show another advantage the capitalist
has over the worker, and can choose to pay the worker based on labor-power or actual labor,
whichever is of the greater benefit to the capitalist.
Hans: You seem to be on the right track. My [534] is an attempt to explain more clearly how the ratio of paid to
unpaid labor is affected by the length of the working day.
Message [532] referenced by [2008fa:875]. Next Message by Jenn is [637].
[534] Hans: Hourly Pay and Length of Workday. Assume an average working class
family needs $700 per week to live, and the conventional working-day is 40 hours per week.
Then, Marx says, the hourly wage is $700/40 = $17.50. Assuming that one hour of labor

258 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
produces a value of $42.50 per hour, the capitalist will get $25 of surplus-value for each
hour he employs his workers, i.e., $1000 weekly for each employee.
This simple calculation has important consequences. I will give two, the first is the obvious
implication, and the second a less obvious implication referred to in the question.
(a) If workers know that this is how their wage is computed, and how much more value
they produce than they get, they might say for instance: we want to work only 35 hours per
week and get $20 per hour. This way we will also get $700 per week, which pays our bills.
The capitalists will strongly resist because it reduces their weekly profit from $1000 per
employee to $787.50 per employee. But if the workers are strong enough, well organized
and militant, they could fight for this outcome (France).
(b) Now assume there is a recession and the capitalist cannot sell all his product. He says
to the workers: sorry, business is bad and next week I can employ you only for 35 hours.
The workers have every right to say: “our cost of living does not go down just because we
work 5 less hours, we need now a higher hourly wage, we need $20 per hour.” The capitalist
would say indignantly “What, you want more pay for less work? Don’t you see that we
are in a recession? We have to stick together in bad times.” He would conveniently forget
that he never dreamt about sticking together in good times but was not ashamed of taking
$25 surplus-value while the worker got only $17.50 per hour. On the contrary, even in bad
times he still insists on $25 of surplus-value per hour worked, although he does not allow
the workers to work long enough that they can earn enough to pay their own bills.
This is what Marx means with the words “the connection between the paid and the unpaid
labor is destroyed.” Previously, the capitalist got his unpaid labor after allowing the workers
first to work the paid labor. Now the capitalist claims unpaid labor without allowing the
workers to perform enough paid labor for themselves to live.
Message [534] referenced by [Answer:9], [532], [2008fa:875], [2009fa:829], and [2009fa:1068]. Next Message by
Hans is [549].
[649] Bennett: The average labor class family needs a certain amount of money to live
each week. To pay bills, buy food, etcetera. If the main bread winner makes a certain amount
of pay every hour for the 40 hours in the work week, the weekly salary must be equal or
above the amount that the family needs to live. But each hour that this employee labors
he/she produces a certain value for the capitalist, the capitalists’ surplus-value is affected by
how many hours the employee works. If there is a recession and not all the product is sold
then the capitalist will try to reduce the hours that the employees work so that he can try
to minimize some of his losses. By decreasing his worker’s hours he is also decreasing his
workers salary. In so doing this, his workers now do not make as much money, but it still
costs them just as much money to pay their bills and to eat as it did before the recession. The
workers will say this to the capitalists but the capitalist will not listen and will still expect the
same surplus-value from the workers even though he is forcing them to work less hours each
week and they cannot make enough money to live off of. This is the destroyed connection
between the paid and the unpaid labor. Before the recession the capitalist received his unpaid
labor after allowing the workers to work the paid labor and then the capitalists gets his unpaid
labor because he does not allow the workers to work enough paid labor so that they can pay
their living expenses.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 259
Next Message by Bennett is [650].
[695] Ryoung: Hourly Wages. In a system of hourly wages without a set daily minimum
of hours, the connection between the paid and unpaid labor is destroyed according to Marx
because we do not have a set daily minimum of hours, which gives us nothing from which
we can calculate which amount of the labor is paid or unpaid.
A set amount of minimum hours gives us a constant variable that allows us to calculate
which of the hours of labor are paid or unpaid. Without the set number of hours we have
nothing to judge with.
Hans: It is not just an issue for the statistician but for the laborer himself, who has to perform so much surplus-labor
that the shortened workweek does not leave him enough time to perform enough paid labor to survive.
Next Message by Ryoung is [699].
[747] Ande: What Marx means when he says the connection between paid and unpaid
labor is destroyed, he is meaning that it is destroyed because there is not set minimum
amount or maximum amount of hours required to work in the working day. If there was
a set minimum or maximum you would be able to have a connection between paid and
unpaid labor. With no true set of hours in a working day you can not tell if the labor one is
performing is considered paid or unpaid, but if you have a set amount of hours to a working
day one could then tell what is paid and unpaid labor. What the capitalists argue is that there
needs to be a set minimum or maximum amount of hours to a working day because if not the
connection gets destroyed and that is what Marx is arguing. As well without this connection
in a sense labor power and use value will not be as true to their meanings because there will
be no connection between the paid and unpaid labor.
Hans: You make it sound as if it was a theoretical question, that one cannot know how much labor is paid and
unpaid. So what? The worker usually does not know anyway that any part of his workday is unpaid. The problem
for him is that he cannot pay his bills if the hours are reduced.
Next Message by Ande is [836].
Question 668 is 680 in 2007SP, 658 in 2007fa, 672 in 2008fa, 703 in 2009fa, 767 in
2010fa, 791 in 2011fa, and 821 in 2012fa:
Question 668 How does Marx argue that longer hours are associated with a lower overall
daily wage?
[561] Paul: The more you work, the more the sytem works you. When a laborer is
doing his job he is doing it for one reason: to get paid. Everybody needs to get paid in order
to survive and “put food on the table” so to speak. The capitalist who is paying the laborers
obviously wants to get away with paying them the lowest possible amount so that he can
pocket the rest. This lowest possible amount that the capitalist can get away with paying the
laborers while still letting the laborers sustain their lives and also leave them still wanting
to work day in and day out could be called the sustainable wage for that line of work. This
“sustainable wage” will be different in every type of work. The equation that Marx gives for
determining the hourly wage of a worker is this sustainable wage divided by the number of
hours worked.
Hourly wage = sustainable wage / hours worked
Given this formula it is obvious to see that as the number of hours worked increases the
hourly wage will decrease. If the sustainable wage of money that you need to get paid in

260 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
one day to survive is $100 and you work 8 hours a day than your hourly wage would be
$12.50/hr. If you worked 10 however, your hourly wage would decrease to $10/hr. This
demonstrates how if you work more hours then people are able get away with paying you a
lower hourly wage.
Hans: According to this formula, the overall daily wage is constant. My [570] tries to explain why the daily wage
is not constant but lower.
Next Message by Paul is [562].
[570] Hans: The longer the day, the lower the daily wage. Marx considered it to be
an empirical fact that long workdays are associated with low wages – not only low hourly
wages, but even low daily wages. And he had a very interesting way to explain it.
According to his theory of wages, the daily wage should be the same, whether the working
day is short or long. Because the daily wage is determined by the reproduction cost of
the laborer, which does not differ if the worker works longer or shorter hours within some
resonable limits.
Even if the daily wage is the same, the workers in those industries where the workday is
longer and the hourly wage is lower are worse off than in those industries where the workday
is shorter and the hourly wage is higher.
And now comes the important sentence from Marx, p. 689/o:
But the same circumstances which allow the capitalist in the long run to
prolong the working day also allow him ... to reduce the price of labor
In other words: those industries in which the working day is long are the industries in
which the workers are weak. This weakness is likely to manifest itself not only in long
hours but also otherwise. Therefore we can expect the daily wage to be lower than in those
industries where the workers are stronger and therefore the working day is shorter, instead
of being equal as the general law postulates.
This is the general argument. Allen’s story in [559] is given by Marx as one of two examples
of circumstances causing this weakness which at the same time prolongs the workingday
and lowers the daily wage.
Message [570] referenced by [561], [592], [616], [634], [2008fa:877], [2008fa:890], [2008fa:907], [2009fa:764],
[2009fa:787], [2011fa:740], [2011fa:956], [2012fa:1070], and [2012fa:1316]. Next Message by Hans is [574].
[592] Goethe: from [570] According to Marx’s theory of wages; the daily wage should be
the same whether the working day is long or short. Wage is determined by the reproduction
cost of the laborer; independent from the length of the working day.
Marx states on p 689; “But the same circumstances which allow the capitalist in the long
run to prolong the working day also allow him to reduce the price of labor.”
The industries that have long working days employ weak unskilled workers, that receive
lower wages. The industries that have strong skilled workers also have shorter working
days. Conclusion; Weak unskilled workers earn less and work longer days, that strong
skilled workers.
Hans: Skills are one factor which can improve the workers’ bargaining position, but it is not the only one.
Next Message by Hans is [596].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 261
[593] Nstew: The longer work day is associated with a lower overall daily wage according
to Marx because the longer you work the more you produce. Marx argues that in a capitalist
society you are working for $10 an hour and the commodities you producing is $40 an hour.
The more hours you work the smaller the portion you are getting paid in comparison to
what you are producing. Although your wage does not go down from $10 an hour the ratio
between what you have produced and what you are getting paid gets smaller and smaller
with each hour you work. Plus the longer the work day the weaker the employees becomes
and thus the lower the wage. The contrast to this is in an industry where the workers are
stronger they are going to get paid more and their work day is going to be shorter.
Hans: The weakness of the employees does not come from the long hours; but the long hours are a sign that the
employees are already in a weak bargaining position.
Next Message by Nstew is [594].
[598] Srichardson: graded A Long hours. According to Marx p. 689/o: “Circumstances
which allow the capitalist in the long run to prolong the work day also allows him. . . to
reduce the price of labor therefore industries where the work day is long are industries in
which the workers are weak.” Given this statement by Marx it would be expected that the
daily wage would be lower in industries where the workers are weaker and stronger where
the workers are united and stand strong. The workers that are weaker allow the capitalists to
force long hours and low wages on them. While in an industry where workers unite and are
strong (i.e. Unions) the wages tend to be higher the shorter and the working conditions all
around more favorable.
Message [598] referenced by [2009fa:764] and [2009fa:970]. First Message by Srichardson is [41].
[607] Trailrunner: graded A Marx believes that long workdays and low wages are an
empirical fact. He also states that “If workers are in a situation where they must agree to
work longer hours, then they are probably also forced to accept lower wages.” This type of
situation would occur in an industry where workers are weak. Were these workers to be
stronger, they might be able to work fewer hours. Thus, these weak workers are worse off.
It is also Marx theory that the daily wage should be the same regardless of the length of
the working day. When the working day ends up being longer, the workers lose all gains
and if no compensatory factors enter, the price of labor is lowered, resulting in a negative
relation due to the reproduction costs of the laborer.
Hans: It is not Marx’s theory that the daily wage should be the same regardless of the length of the working day,
but that the market forces are trying to move wages in that direction.
Next Message by Trailrunner is [608].
[616] Chris: A lack of health = A lack of money. Marx argues that a worker’s overall
productivity will drop the longer they work in a day because of the fatigue, hunger, lack of
motivation, etc. that will occur. If workers are continually “breaking-down” health wise,
then the capitalists do not see them as much of a threat. Therefore, the capitalists can pay
these workers less without necessarily worrying about the workers leaving them to find new
jobs. Hans explains a similar thought in [570] by saying that “those industries in which the
working day is long are the industries in which the workers are weak. This weakness is likely
to manifest itself not only in long hours but also otherwise. Therefore we can expect the daily
wage to be lower than in those industries where the workers are stronger and therefore the
working day is shorter, instead of being equal as the general law postulates.”

262 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
I also think that if the workers are being paid in piece-wage pay, then they will see a
decrease in their overall daily wage if they work longer hours. If the workers are working
long hours and are losing productivity due to fatigue, hunger, etc., then they will in essence
be losing wages since they cannot create as much product. This is why it would be more
beneficial to work less hours in a day and keep productivity high so that the workers will
make more money for themselves and of course, the capitalists.
Hans: The weakness of the workers is not necessarily physical weakness and it does not necessarily come from
the longer workday. Marx’s argument was that the longer workday is a sign that the workers’ bargaining position
is weak.
Next Message by Chris is [655].
[630] Alex: graded B The capitalist is the one who wants to get as much value from labor
power at as little cost as possible. The capitalist uses several methods to increase hours
worked by the laborer. One such method is piece wages. If you pay by piece and not by
hour you fool the laborer into believing they can earn the same wage in as much time. But
often workers work longer hours to get the same pay. Piece wage is the first way longer
hours equal lower daily wages.
The second way is built into the production process and overall effectiveness of the laborer.
If a laborer can produce something in four hours, and that accounts for the pay of a
24 hour day the capitalist is losing money. In other words four hours of works sustain the
worker over a 24 hour period. The capitalist is losing money. The laborer should have to
work longer to supply the money needed to support themselves the other hours of the day.
The longer work hours and less pay.
Hans: You are arguing that workers work longer hours for the same pay. But why would their total pay decrease
if they work longer?
Next Message by Alex is [633].
[634] Rmuscolino: Marx argues that longer hours are associated with a lower overall
daily wage by stating, “However, the extension of the period of labor produces in its turn a
fall in the price of labor, and with this a fall in the daily or the weekly wage.” He’s saying
that the fall in the price of labor will not only erase the gains of workers hoped for when they
agreed to work longer hours, but in the end, the daily wage will be even lower than initially.
If no compensatory factor enters, the ratio of the daily value of labor-power divided by the
working day of a given number of hours determines the price of labor. It shows that the
prolongation of the working day itself lowers the price of labor. Also with the fact that the
working day is longer than normal to begin with, this adds as a force to generate the negative
relation. According to the underlying laws of capitalist production, one should expect the
daily wage to be independent of the length of the working day, since it is determined by the
reproduction cost of the laborer and not by the amount of labor performed. One should also
expect the length of the working day to be equal for all industries.
Hans: As in [628], you stopped reading the Annotations before you fully understood them. I know the Annotations
are sometimes difficult to understand, therefore I often give the argument in a more concise form in my submissions.
My [570] is your friend.
Message [634] referenced by [659]. Next Message by Rmuscolino is [659].
[636] Matt: Daily Wage. People work to survive. In order to live in an ever growing
capitalistic society we must all drink from the everlasting cup of labor. One might think we
work to survive, but after a second glance it seems we survive to work. Our bodies have been

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 263
trained to work harder and longer for many many years. Marx would say we have become
drunk from the labor cup and are not seeing the truth about the labor we have produced. We
work more and more hours just so we can partake of what the capitalist has produced. Marx
says that the more hours the laborer works to survive the lower his wage will decrease. He
says, “the daily or weekly wage depends on the quantity of labor expended.” So, as more
labor hours are produced the more the wage price is driven down since the quantity is higher.
Mark continues to say, “. . . the lower the price of labor, the greater must be the quantity of
labor, or the longer must be the working day, for the worker to secure even a miserable
average wage.“ This thought process can be calculated by using Marx labor ratio of:
Hourly wage or Labor Power / number of hours worked.
This ratio shows us that Marx’s thinking is correct, that as the laborers hours worked
increase the hourly wage will decrease. For example: If a worker needs to make $250 per
day to pay his bills and to eat, then he will have to make $31.25 per hr if working 8 hours
per day. Now if he works 11 hrs per day then he will only make $22.72 per hr. It is hard
as Americans to think of it this way as all we see is dollar signs, but the capitalist would
not have it any other way. We have been caught in a labor trap that we will never get out of
unless we make a stand against the capitalist.
Next Message by Matt is [678].
[644] Inter: Lower overall daily wage. Unfortunately my exam answer was only partially
correct. My exam answer captured Marx’s equation for the lowering of hourly wage
by stating something similar this:
The line A—B-C represents the total work hours in a day. If C is extended, this does not
mean that the daily wage has increased, just the total number of hours worked per day. In
essence, the longer work day, at the same daily wage means that hourly wage has decreased,
but not the daily wage. Marx’s equation showed this.
However, this only partially explains why the daily wage has decreased. This equation
shows how the capitalist is able to control the hours worked per day by extending C. This
extension in the work day has a long term effect of lowering the daily wage, because in order
to support yourself, you have to be willing to work the longer hours. This ability to extend
the work day, in the long run becomes the ability to lower the daily wage. This extends from
the logic that the groups who accept longer work days are less organized and less combative
because they have yielded to the capitalist’s demands to work longer hours. In the long run,
they will yield to even more.
Hans: Just to make sure we are on the same page: the longer work hours do not necessarily come from the capitalist
suddenly extending the workday without more pay. They could come from the hourly wage being so low but so
much overtime being offered that everybody has to work overtime, etc. Still, your argument with the weakness of
the working class is correct.
Next Message by Inter is [745].
[669] Bmellor: Salary=getting screwed. Wages are used as an incentive to induce a
worker to work. Marx’s formula is hourly wage = predetermined daily wage divided by
hours worked.
Example:

264 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
$100 daily wage/8 hours labor= $12.50 per hour The more hours you work the less you
are getting paid per hour. Easily this concept is understood by someone on salary. If you
get $40,000 per year and you work 50 hours per week you are getting paid less than the guy
who gets $40,000 per year and only has to work 40 hours per week.
Hans: You are getting paid less per hour but the total wage is the same, $40,000. Marx by contrast says that the
total wage goes down as hours increase. Why? You also did not say why and how the daily wage is predetermined.
Next Message by Bmellor is [767].
[675] Jeremy: Marx argues that longer hours are associated with a lower overall daily
wage for multiple reasons. First, and very importantly, Marx looks at wages on a daily
standard, not hourly or weekly. This is paramount because the capitalist purchases the laborpower
for the day. The laborer is only able to sell his labor-power on a temporary basis,
otherwise if he were to sell it all, he would become more of a slave or a simple servant to the
capitalist. Exploitation could happen at an exponential rate if this were the case. The agreed
upon price will be in the capitalist’s favor because his “break even” point will be met before
the end of the laborer’s day. The longer the laborer gives his labor-power beyond the “break
even point” (necessary labor-power), the more surplus-value is derived and the capitalist is
the recipient of it. This surplus-value is what capitalist desire. The more hours worked by the
laborer can be thought of like this: 1 day = 8 hours for $10, if the laborer works a 1 day shift
for $10, but gives 10 hours instead, he has reduced his own wages. Instead of $1.25 p/hr,
he is now making $1.00 p/hr. A modern day example of this is the employment of salaried
workers. They are guaranteed a payment, but their hours are considered variable. More
often than not, the hours worked per day are more than that of an hourly worker. Therefore,
they have reduced their wages by giving more of their labor-power.
Hans: You have shown that a longer day is associated with a lower hourly wage, not that it is associated with a
lower total wage. And you did not explain why Marx, as you said, “looks at wages on a daily standard.” And the
break-even point is not the same as necessary labor, as I tried to explain in [515].
Next Message by Jeremy is [827].
[689] FacistFrank: Because the capitalist only wants to pay the worker a subsistence
wage or a reproduction of labor power cost, so they can steal as much surplus labor value as
possible. There is an inverse relationship between working hours and pay, just like there is a
dialectic between the poles of exchange and relative forms, use value and real value, it is like
the opposite poles of magnets. Of course Marx was writing in the 1800’s when the capitalist
was at his absolute worst (in my opinion) and paying the worker a scant subsistence wage in
order to maximize their profits. Today in my opinion the worker is still very exploited, he is
still having the majority of his surplus labor stolen. But he does get paid for a small amount
of his surplus labor today. I think this is because the power of the worker has increased over
the last 150 years. Perhaps some morality has been injected into economics, i think Marx
has a good deal to do with this, Unions are also more powerful than they were 150 years
ago. The worker is more organized. Also i think that another part of it is the capitalist pays
the worker just enough so he will not blatantly see he is being exploited, and rise up against
the capitalist.
Message [689] referenced by [720]. Next Message by FacistFrank is [771].
[702] Sparky: [688:1] It is a generally known fact that the longer the working day in a
branch of industry, the lower the wages are. In the annotations, Marx’s arguments about
this particular question begin with the discussion of low hourly wages, which due to the low

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 265
wages workers agree to work longer hours so that they can earn a liveable wage. But Marx
continues by explain how the longer hours will actually decrease the wage which is found
by taking the daily value of labor power and dividing it by the working days given hours.
here is just a little math – say you work just 2 hours a day, produce 10 units and get paid
1 dollar an hour 10/5=2 5/2=2.5 2.5 is how much you are basically paid to produce. Now try
3 hours a day producing 15 units, and still getting 1 dollar an hour 15/3=5 5/3= 1.66 1.66 is
how much you are basically getting paid to produce
Hans: In this example you are not even reducing the hourly wage. Marx not only says that the hourly wage is
reduced, but that it is reduced more than the day is lengthened, so that the total daily wage income declines. Why?
Next Message by Sparky is [705].
[707] Gerund: Marx argued that longer hours are associated with an overall lower daily
wage due to the balance of power between capitalists and workers. In industries where
capitalists can require longer hours, they would also have the power to extort more surplusvalue
by paying lower wages. When workers upset this power structure and gain the upper
hand, they get higher wages and shorter days, leaving the capitalists with less surplus value
and smaller profits.
Hans: Very good.
Next Message by Gerund is [815].
[710] Raynold: Marx argues that longer hours are associated with longer overall daily
wage because it depends on the laborer’s reproduction cost. A weak worker can only do so
much and by its production determines its wage. Although it is an empirical fact, the work
wages should remain the same whether it is a long or short work day. Strong workers get
higher wages because of their ability to be productive. Therefore, since they can produce
more than the weak worker, they can afford to take shorter work days but have higher wages.
Weak laborers have to prolong their work day because capitalists have the right to lower
wages due to reproduction cost.
Hans: You are saying two contradictory things at the same time:
(a) wages depend on the worker’s reproduction cost.
(b) wages depend on the performance of the worker.
In Marx’s theory, (b) is wrong.
Next Message by Raynold is [711].
[713] JPeel: graded A– Marx argues that longer hours are associated with a lower overall
daily wage because according to the laws of capital production the daily wage is independent
of the length of the working day. The length of the working day is determined by the reproduction
cost of the laborer and not by the amount of the labor performed. The length of a
working day is equal for all industries which is longer than normal. Many workers are stuck
in the situation where they have to agree to work longer hours where they will be forced to
accept lower overall wages.
Hans: The way you write it I am not sure if you really understood Marx’s argument.
Next Message by JPeel is [714].
[716] Carterryan: The Price of Labor is Right!!!! The reason for longer hours resulting
in a lower overall wage is that the laborer in the first part, are working more hours and in
turn creating more supply of labor. If a man does one and a half or two times as much as one
man the output of that one man has increased, but the labor power is the same. This in turn

266 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
brings down the price of labor and also force up work hours. It really does create a bigger
profit for the capitalist but not for the worker.
Next Message by Carterryan is [717].
[719] Andy: In Class Response
Marx argues that longer hours lead to lower overall daily wage because he believes that
people need to have sleep time, social time, and extra free time to keep them happy. I believe
that Marx really gets it here because he understands the people. He understands that if you
work people too much you are not going to make more, but make less because you are paying
them their hours but losing production because of fatigue. He understands that people need
their battery recharged in order to do the best possible work they can.
Out of Class Response
Marx considered it an empirical fact that long workdays are associated with low wages.
Industries in which working day is long are industries in which workers are weak. Therefore
the daily wage is lower.
Next Message by Andy is [775].
[723] Tim: graded A Marx explains that in industries where the work days are longer
there is a tendency for the wage to be low because those who are in a situation where they
must agree to work long hours are most likely forced to accept lower wages for the work that
they perform. Marx gives an example where there is surplus labor available to the market
and the workers become competitors to each other in order to keep their jobs. Along with
the competition that the workers bring into the job market they also bring the what almost
always comes with competition, lower prices (wages). The lower wages then compel the
workers to work longer hours in order to be able to put food on the table. The other example
that Marx gives is that of surplus commodities, which mean lower prices that are then set
as a market standard. Once the market standard price is set then the workers are forced to
keep producing the same products at the same low wage so the capitalist is able to make his
profits.
Next Message by Tim is [785].
[731] Wade: Marx argues that longer hours = a lower overall daily wage. “However the
extension of the period of labor produces in its turn a fall in the price of labor, and with
this a fall in the daily or the weekly wage.” Marx shows us here that a fall in the price
of labor lowers the amount of gains that the worker was hoping for when they agreed to
work longer hours and in the end the daily wage will even be lower than the initial wage.
Hans also gives us a formula to show us how this works, daily value of labor-power divided
by working day of a given number of hours, by prolonging the work day lowers the price
of labor. “By working more, the worker increases the supply of labor, ie., competes with
himself or herself.” Also if the factory workers refuse to work longer hours they can even
lose their job! “For instance, if a factory worker refuses to work the long hours which are
customary, he would very shortly be replaced by somebody who would work any length of
time, and thus be thrown out of employment.” These examples from Marx show us that he
definitely argues that the longer the hours the lower the daily wage.
Hans: After your first Marx quote you write “Marx shows” although in that passage Marx does not show anything.
It makes a claim that is then substantiated later in the text. The laborer competing with himself is one argument
Marx gives. But there another, in my view more convincing argument which you are not bringing.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 267
Next Message by Wade is [732].
[738] Aaron: Marx starts his argument a little backwards in my opinion. He does not
argue that the lower hourly wage is a result from actually working a longer day, but he
argues that as wages go down in the market place, a laborer must work more hours to make
up for the lower wage, thus creating a longer working day. He argues that the low level
of wages is a stimulus for causing the average worker’s daily hours. This cause and effect
relationship shows that Marx views the market from the laborer’s perspective. With the price
of labor going down, the quantity of labor must rise in order to produce goods.
Hans: Marx’s theory of wages is backwards in the following way: he does not start with the hourly wage as
the basic building block determined by fundamental economic forces, and derives from this the daily wage by
multiplying the hourly wage by the number of hours worked. Instead Marx says the fundamental economic forces
fix the daily wage, not the hourly wages: the daily reproduction costs of the laborer (which is the reproduction cost
of the commodity labor-power he is selling) is the fundamental economic given. From this Marx derives the hourly
wages by dividing the daily wages by the length of the working-day. This length is not determined by economic
forces but by the class struggle between workers and capitalists. Therefore there is a negative correlation between
wages and length of the workday.
The individual worker naively thinks that he is selling labor, not labor-power, therefore he thinks that the hourly
wage, not the daily wage, is given by economic fundamentals. And since he sees a low hourly wage, the only way
for him to make ends meet is to work long hours. He does not see that he would have the alternative of fighting for
higher wages and working shorter hours.
All this only explains why a longer workday results in lower hourly wages. But Marx says more than this: he
says a longer workday even results in lower daily wages. Why this would be the case is not explained by the above
argument.
Next Message by Aaron is [739].
Question 669 is 659 in 2007fa:
Question 669 Why are wages low in industries where the working-day is long?
[559] Allen: Low wages, Long hours. The wages are low because there is usually an
excess supply of labor in the labor market. As stated in the book by Marx, if one person does
the work of more than one person, the supply of labor increases even though the supply of
labor-power on the market remains the same. Since each worker does more work the supply
of labor increases, which causes more competition in the labor market. This is the cause
that lets capitalists be able to lower the price of labor and be able to force up the hours of
work, because if a worker refuses to work the long hours he could be easily replaced by the
increased supply of labor.
Message [559] referenced by [570] and [2008fa:907]. Next Message by Allen is [733].
Question 671 is 683 in 2007SP, 661 in 2007fa, 675 in 2008fa, 706 in 2009fa, 770 in
2010fa, 789 in 2011fa, 819 in 2012fa, and 770 in Answer:
Question 671 What is the difference between surplus labor time and overtime?
[563] Slash: Surplus labor, a normal part of every work day. When I go to work
everyday I produce an average of 60 dollars of product for my company an hour, but I only
receive 10 dollars an hour. The company I work for then has a surplus of money after 10
minutes of my labor every hour I work. In this capitalistic society I feel that I have been
paid a wage, and that there is no surplus labor because I received a wage. Marx would say
that every hour produces a value of 60 dollars this means the capitalist pays 10 dollars of

268 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
it and the remaining 50 dollars is surplus labor. Overtime is then simply an extension this
situation. Surplus labor is therefor a normal part of every work day, and me receiving an
extra 5 dollars an hour to my wage in an overtime situation does not change the fact there is
surplus labor going on.
Hans: Yes. The overtime hour also produces a value of $60, therefore it produces $45 instead of $50 surplus-value
for the capitalist.
Next Message by Slash is [564].
Question 674 is 678 in 2008fa and 797 in 2011fa:
Question 674 How does the coexistence of time-wages and piece-wages enable the capitalist
to cheat?
[558] Mick: graded B The further abstraction of exploitation through over-working.
The capitalist disguises, or in his terms creates an incentive to be more productive, because
these incentives will increase his marginal profit per employee, thus decreasing the proportional
amount of money paid out per piece of labor. To illustrate the example to which this
question refers to in an algebraic inequality will further demonstrate how the coexistence of
time and piece wages create an opportunity for additional exploitation/profit. let x= the number
of hours worked. 200(x), where x is equal to 1/2 an hour yields 100 hours of wages–and
in this example this amount of labor is equal to the labor of one employee who labors for 50
hours paid in piece wages. The capitalist is getting more productivity from overworking one
employee. As a matter of fact, if this employee were to receive standard overtime wages at
time and a half for exceeding a 40 hour workweek, it would still be in the capitalist’s best
interest to overwork him. This overworking decreases the amount of time spent to produce,
thus creating a vacancy that would provide additional opportunities to exploit others in its
place.
Also, one can only imagine the exponential growth of the adverse externalities that materialize
as a result of this sort of malicious abasement.
Message [558] referenced by [568]. Next Message by Mick is [560].
[568] Hans: Piece wages and time wages in the same factory. Marx’s example in
footnote 47 to 692:4/o is a little tricky and unusual for modern times. I think the following
was going on:
The time is 1860 and the usual workweek is 60 hours. A certain factory has 400 workers.
200 are paid piece-wage, and the others are paid what Marx calls time wage, it is a flat rate
per day, with no overtime. The piece wage workers work twice as hard as the time wage
workers, and since they want to maximize their wage income, they work 1/2 hour overtime
every day, 10 1/2 hours instead of 10 hours, Monday through Saturday. The production
process is such that the time wage workers must also stay this half hour every day, but they
do not get any extra pay for it. This is how the capitalists cheat: the time wage workers
should be allowed to go home after 10 hours, but since they work together with the piece
wage workers and the piece wage workers are willing to stay longer, the time wage workers
also have to stay longer.
The computation shows how much the capitalist gains from this. In half an hour, 200 time
wage workers perform together 100 working hours, which is as much as 50 hours by a piece

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 269
wage worker, or 5/6th of the weekly labor of a piece wage worker. This is the extra labor
which the capitalist gets every day without having to pay for it: it is almost a full week’s
labor of one piece wage worker.
If my interpretation of the example is correct, then Mick’s remark in [558] that “the
capitalist is getting more productivity from overworking one employee” is mistaken. Instead
of overworking one employee, the capitalists make 200 time wage workers work a little more
each day, 5 percent more than their usual workday, without paying them. This adds up.
Message [568] referenced by [2008fa:879]. Next Message by Hans is [570].
Question 677 is 681 in 2008fa, 712 in 2009fa, 776 in 2010fa, and 831 in 2012fa:
Question 677 Explain how piece wages can become a “most fertile source for wage theft
and capitalist cheating.”
[544] Goethe: graded A I owe my soul to the company store. “You load 16 tons and
whaddaya get??
another day older and deeper in dept
Saint Peter don’tcha call me ’Cause-
I can’t go...I owe my soul to the Company Store”
(16 Tons, Merle Travis 1946)
The preceding is from a song about coal miners, it is reminiscent of the subject at hand,
and I think Marx would have enjoyed it.
Coal mining is a great example of how piece wages can become a “fertile source for wage
theft and capitalist cheating.”
In the early 1900s most miners were paid piece wages according to the amounts of coal
they produced or “picked”. (piece wages) A logical assumption would be when production
was low, the pay was also proportionately low, hence a worker will need to be productive in
order to receive a wage, etc...
The coal mining companies were the masters of wage theft and worker exploitation, it
is slavery. The way they achieved this was simple; they were the owners of everything.
Miners lived in company owned housing, bought goods from company owned stores, and
were transported to the area by company owned railways. Workers were given credit at the
company owned stores, and for company owned housing, if workers did not produce; the
consequence could be disastrous. This ownership gave the mining companies a monopoly
on the lives of their workers, which made them slaves to the company.
Going back to the quote; Travis is telling us that it does not matter how much is produced,
it is still not enough, and he will go to the grave owing the company.
Given that the owners of production are also the owners of workers’ necessities, it gives
great opportunity for wage theft and cheating. The supervisors are the judges of how much a
worker produces. They calibrate the scales used to measure a workers pile of coal, it could be
their advantage to underweigh this production. By doing this the capitalist robs the worker
of his wages.

270 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
This all ended when the miners became organized, or at least it was less apparent.
Conclusion: When a worker accepts pay based on the amount of pieces he produces, he
places himself at the mercy of the capitalist owner. The owner of production is the evaluator
of the quality and quantity of production received. This gives the capitalist opportunity to
steal wages from the worker.
Message [544] referenced by [549], [2008fa:888], and [2009fa:790]. Next Message by Goethe is [591].
[549] Hans: Slavery Creeping into the Wage Labor Relation on Different Fronts.
Goethe [544] correctly identifies the connection between piece wages and wage theft: Piece
wages encourage wage theft because the capitalist is the one who measures the output.
Goethe also mentions company stores and indebtedness of the workers. They are not
associated with the piece wage form specifically, but their source lies in the fact that wages
are paid after the labor is performed. In the meanwhile, the worker may need an advance on
his wages, which puts him into debt, or he has to buy at the company store at inflated prices,
because the company store gives him credit against his upcoming wages.
Next Message by Hans is [565].
[560] Mick: graded A The subjective/exploitive properties of quality. Quality control,
and the subjective nature of quality assessment create new ways to milk the proletariat. By
using quantitative comparatives, and relative terms as criteria for what is or is not acceptable,
the capitalist is able to bend his quality definition to fit his self interest, proving that BS is a
fertile source for both capitalists and farmers alike. Just like in baseball, anything close to a
tie in terms of unacceptable quality will always go to the capitalist since he is his own umpire.
Moreover, he can discreetly cinch up his evolving standards of what ‘good average’ quality
is over time to strangle his employees, thereby simultaneously mitigating his employees’
financial entitlements and enhancing his personal bank account.
Hans: Oh I get it. BS comes from agriculture, but it can also be used by the capitalists.
Message [560] referenced by [2010fa:809]. Next Message by Mick is [583].
Question 680 is 691 in 2007SP, 670 in 2007fa, 779 in 2010fa, and 834 in 2012fa:
Question 680 Which advantages does the form of piece-wages have for the capitalists?
What does it mean for the relation between the workers?
[541] Srichardson: graded A getting paid by how much you produce. When you first
think of piece-wages it appears that this form of wages gives more control to the workers
than the other form of wage that we have studied. It appears this way because the more the
worker produces the more the worker gets paid.
In reality this is not true of piece-wages. Although it may seem like it gives more power
to the worker, it keeps the power in the hands of the capitalist and even becomes more
beneficial to the capitalist. When there is a system of piece-wage the worker feels that he
must work harder and produce more in order to make more money. This makes a greater
amount of goods produced in an hour. When the worker works harder the capitalist also
makes more money even though he is not putting in any of his labor.
One of the big advantages of piece-wages for the capitalist is that workers begin to see the
other co-workers as competition. The workers then start to work against each other trying to
work the hardest and longest. This makes it that much harder for workers to band together

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 271
and demand fair treatment. It is a way for the capitalist to in a way divide and conquer the
workers.
Another advantage that piece-wages have for the capitalist is that the capitalist only has
to pay the worker when they are directly in the production process. If the worker is slow the
capitalist does not pay until the piece is finished. If the worker complains about the wage
they receive the capitalist can say they should just produce more.
When you look at the big picture piece-wages are great for the capitalist it creates profit
by cutting cost. Piece-wages put the worker at a disadvantage by making the workers work
a lot to produce the wage that is necessary for them, while putting workers at competition
with each other.
Message [541] referenced by [547] and [554]. Next Message by Srichardson is [597].
[547] Alex: graded A Piece-Wages. Srichardson brings up some very interesting discussion
points [541] while talking about piece-wages and their benefits to the capitalist.
However, this entry misses some crucial points of the piece-wage process while highlighting
non-existent parameters. For instance, Srichardson highlights the competition that arises
from piece-wages. Why would there be competition? If there were it would certainly keep
the worker in line. However, such a statement makes the product sound limited, as though
the workers are in a race.
The actuality is that piece-wage is a very complex alienation of the worker from their
product. While at the same time it allows the capitalist to lower wages based on output and
not on time spent. The capitalist can do this slowly over time in a very systematic fashion.
Piece-wage is meant to change the perspective of the worker. It shifts their thinking and
mannerisms into a manner that is more easily manipulated by the capitalist while the worker
feels they are coming out on top. As mentioned this can be a questionable method, which
has not always been successful.
This section does highlight the power of the worker when united. This is one of Marx’s
most important results, the union and united workers. It is important to factor in that workers
can fight against these initiatives and methods if they are united.
Hans: If Srichardson and Marx say that piece wages separate the workers and foster competition, while time
wages unite the workers, then this is not a criticism or praise of the workers. It merely characterizes the objective
conditions in which the workers are placed. With piece wages, the capitalist can pretend the wage is so low because
the employee does not work hard enough, and he can probably point to some other over-eager employee to make his
point. Even if the employees do not feel competitive or do not want to compete, they are still placed in a situation
where the achievement of one harms the other. In time wages, the exact opposite can happen. One employee
is a slacker, the others have to work harder because of this, but they all get the same wage. These are different
conditions. What the employees make out of these conditions, is another matter.
Message [547] referenced by [551]. Next Message by Alex is [629].
Question 682 is 694 in 2007SP, 673 in 2007fa, and 781 in 2010fa:
Question 682 Why is piece wage the wage form most appropriate for capitalism?
[528] Sparky: Piece Wages. Piece wage is the most appropriate form of wage for the
capitalist system because it allows the capitalist to diminish the price paid per good, allows
for a critical amount of quality control, as well as keeps workers at odds with each other.

272 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
By creating a system of which the worker gets paid per piece rather than by time – the
worker will push himself harder to produce more, in order to receive more on his pay check.
While it certainly does raise his paycheck, it is at the expense of lowering the price per piece!
Since more time is spent producing goods – using more labor-power – it reduces the price
of the labor.
Quality control is now solely in the hands of the capitalist, who can on the spot turn a
worker away empty handed for producing a product that is not up to their standards, even
though they have spent time producing the good. Whereas in a time wage situation the
worker would have been paid for the time it took to create the good.
As for the workers, who under a time-wage situation would be paid the same for the same
type of work that was done, which in turn uniting them on that level at the least. The piece
wage allows for individuals to earn different wages due to physical or mental properties
contained by some and not the others, which helps define how much an individual could
produce in a day. This situation would let resentment between workers grow among them
and keep frustrations away from the capitalist.
Message [528] referenced by [533], [685], and [2010fa:799]. Next Message by Sparky is [700].
[533] Chris: unaware of exploitation. Sparky brought up a lot of very valid and informative
points in [528] when responding to the point that piece wage seems to be the most
appropriate wage form for a capitalistic society. One of these points that kind of summarizes
Sparky’s piece in my opinion was that “by creating a system of which the worker gets paid
per piece rather than by time – the worker will push himself harder to produce more, in order
to receive more on his pay check.” I could not agree more with this line, however, after
reading the weekly annotations I think there is more to bring up to the topic.
After reading the annotations, I realized even more that the average, everyday worker is
sadly unaware of the exploitation brought on by the capitalists in control. I recently watched
a documentary that mentioned the ever-growing gap of the poor and rich in the United States
and not one of the poorer folk mentioned that their bosses were exploiting them. They were
more concerned with feeding their children, paying for health care, and in all reality; being
able to live another day. This goes back to piece wage pay because the poorer folk are sick
and tired of just trying to live for one more day. They want to look ahead; one month, 1 year,
and 10+ years down their lives. So the second the capitalist tells them that the harder they
work (i.e. the more pieces of fabric a worker creates) the more they will get paid, the worker
will work harder so that they can have more money to fund their future.
Of course, the capitalist is not giving the worker more money without paying him or
herself first. We have learned that there is a gap of profits to be made for the capitalist with
each piece of fabric, for instance, created. The more fabric created, the more money is placed
in the coat pockets of the capitalist and likewise for the worker. However, only a fraction is
paid to the worker and once again, they are being exploited. But the worker is unaware of
this exploitation. The average, every-day poor worker only sees the increase of pay on their
paycheck due to the increase of fabric created by them. This helps them to buy a few more
goods at the grocery store or possibly stash a little money away in savings for future use.
So in the end, piece wages cause the worker to be happy because they are unaware of the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 273
exploitation and can think in terms of the future, and of course the capitalist is happy with
excess profits in their now, new coatpockets.
Hans: Chris asked me why his cross reference to Sparky did not give him credit for feedback to peer submissions.
My answer: a cross reference to Sparky earns feedback credit for Chris if reading Chris’s comment would have
enabled Sparky to make his own submission better, or would have helped the reader of the archives to understand
Sparky’s submission better. I don’t think they would, for two reasons:
(a) Sparky gave three very different reasons why piece wages are good for capitalism: they intensify labor, they
have built-in quality control, and they foster disunity between workers. Chris only referred to the first point and
said that this first point summarized Sparky’s piece. To me this indicates that Chris didn’t read Sparky’s piece very
carefully, and this remark is also not helpful for the readers of Sparky’s contribution.
(b) Chris’s own addition to Sparky’s first point is that the worker, in his reaction to the piece-wage incentives, is
unaware of his own exploitation. Although I consider this an important point in general, Chris does not tell Sparky
why he should have raised this point in his own answer, why his answer is somehow deficient for not saying this.
I’m not surprised because I don’t think it is. Chris just took off from Sparky’s submission to say his own thing. It
is good and necessary to build on the submissions of others, but this alone is not yet the kind of detailed feedback I
require from everyone three times per Semester.
Message [533] referenced by [692]. Next Message by Chris is [605].
[554] Wade: Piece-wage. Piece wage is the most appropriate for capitalism because the
workers will only be paid for the amount of value that they create for capitalist. If the workers
want to be paid more they need to produce more! “So much weight of cotton is delivered to
him (the spinner) and he has to return by a certain time, in lieu of it, a given weight of twist
or yarn, of a certain degree of fineness, and he is paid so much per pound for all that he so
returns. If his work is defective in quality, the penalty falls on him.” The capitalist are able
to negotiate with the workers, if you want more produce more, and if the worker wants more
he will produce more, and by producing more, the capitalist is gaining more. The piecewage
form also keeps workers more competitive with each other and focused on producing
as much as they can, which reduces the possibilites of the workers banding together and
rebelling against their capitalist bosses.
Hans: Everything you said, except the quote about the cotton, was said before you by Srichardson [541], even the
typo of writing “ban together” instead of “band together” (which I fixed in the archives.)
Message [554] referenced by [2008fa:1150]. Next Message by Wade is [589].
[677] PrivateProperty: Piece Wage. Piece wage is the wage form most appropriate for
capitalism because it motivates the worker to maximize his productivity, producing relative
surplus value for the capitalist.
Workers on a piece wage will want to maximize their production in order to see an increase
in pay. This has the contradictory effect of lowering wages, as the socially necessary
labor time for producing a good is reduced. As wages decrease, piece wage workers will respond
by increasing their productivity even more in order to maintain their previous income,
leading to a downward spiral.
All of this activity increases relative surplus value for the capitalist.
Next Message by PrivateProperty is [793].
[685] Dyoung: Marx says “that the piece-wage is nothing but a transmuted form of the
time-wage just as the time-wage is a transmuted form of the value or price of labor-power.”
It is the most appropriate form of wage because if a worker can make a better income due to
a piece wages, then they will be better off and this would help the piece rate to become lower
in the long run. Capitalists tend to pay workers their wages after the labor is performed not

274 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
as it is performed causing some laborers to fall into debt and not be able to pay for their
cost of living. The capitalist seem to always be looking out for themselves and how they are
getting ahead in the market. Hans makes a great point that every experienced worker knows
that this happens and this is exactly why Marx has this theory, so according to the total daily
or weekly wage really depends on the worker’s cost of living and not how much the worker
works. So by having a a piece-wage for the workers, they are better off and are better able
to stay out of debt because they are able to pay for their cost of living, which the capitalist is
not helping accomplish this. It is very important to have theories like a piece-wage to help
the economy grow.
Hans: This is a smorgasboard of things you learned in this class, but does not explain why piece wages are so good
for the capitalists. Look at Sparky’s [528].
Next Message by Dyoung is [687].
[730] Mick: graded A– Piece wages eliminate the pressure to produce at the same cooperative
pace as fellow laborers. This is used as a tool of exploitation by capitalists. By using
piece instead of time wages, he is able to use the most productive worker’s performance as a
standard to earn the same wages he would pay to any employee compensated through time
wages. This way the comparatively less efficient employees are forced to work longer hours
to earn the same wage. This way the capitalist is able to increase the exploitation of his
employees by reducing the amount the less efficient employees are paid per any given unit
of time. This increased profit may be reinvested in technologies such as a faster conveyor
belt, which would allow the capitalist to further reduce the piece wage while increasing the
intensity of work/productive power of machinery. The increased surplus value which result
from piece wages also increase the likelihood that a worker will be replaced, or required to
work more intensively, because they may be used to purchase newer technologies. Piece
wages only benefit the capitalist, and cause severe distress on workers. One of many adverse
externalities of piece wages is that it smites the cooperative environment enjoyed by
employees who are employed through time wages.
Hans: Piece wages also make it easier, or even unnecessary, to supervise the worker.
Next Message by Mick is [903].
[736] Alcameron: The piece wage form is the most appropriate for capitalism because it
encourages greater production by intensifying labor. In the piece wage system the worker
is paid based on their prodution which may create some competition and disunity between
workers. Each hour of work is more effective for the capitalist when this is the case. In
capitalism ultimately a worker is selling his labor so if he isn’t actually working he shouldn’t
be paid for that. When a worker sells his labor and is productive creating a labor-surplus then
he deserves his wage. The piece wage form ultimately creates the largest labor-surplus.
Next Message by Alcameron is [778].
[824] Bar: content A late penalty 9% Piece wage is the most appropriate form for capitalism
because piece wage is the most advantageous for the capitalist. It motivates the laborer
to produce better and more of a commodity increasing surplus, while at the same time creating
higher competition between the labor force. This creates a culture where very little labor
organisation can take place because the capitalist has divided the labor force. Furthermore,
when paid by piece the capitalist has less risk of there being money paid for less desirable
workers and workers who get sick or disabled, he is only paying for the final product not the
intermediate.

Next Message by Bar is [825].
U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 275
Question 683 is 695 in 2007SP, 674 in 2007fa, 687 in 2008fa, 718 in 2009fa, and 807 in
2011fa:
Question 683 How do piece-wages change if productivity rises?
[545] Scott: Same money more work. Instead of paying the worker for the time and
labor he puts into a project, some capitalists use what is called piece-wages. Piece-wages
pay the worker by the amount of pieces produced, their purpose is to press out as much labor
as possible from the worker. The worker is paid more for his labor when he produces more
pieces. The underlying mathematical principle is if the wages are lowered, then the workers
have to work harder and longer to produce the amount of pieces to get the same amount of
money. Because of this productivity goes up and the wages are lowered. It is obvious that
workers would not like this type of payment because while they are making more pieces
they are making the same or less money, while the price the capitalist is charging for the
good has not decreased. Now it is apparent that the capitalists are profiting while the laborer
is getting paid the same or less.
Message [545] referenced by [565]. Next Message by Scott is [546].
[552] SnatchimusMaximus: graded A+ Salary offer, or offer for the taking? It seems
that a loophole exists for the capitalist in all forms of wage, whether hourly wage, piece
wage, or salary. The capitalist can avoid overtime pay and full-time benefits for the hourly
worker simply by hiring more workers. Piece wages may be kept artificially low to encourage
workers to produce finished pieces in a frantic hurry to earn a living. Meanwhile, the
most prestigious of all pay...The Salary, can prove exploitive because salaries are typically
negotiated independent of hours expected to work. In all three cases the workers’ checks are
kept low, the capitalists’ balance sheet grows, and the worker runs to and fro.
Since we are talking about checks and balances, the system as it stands needs lots of
them. Hourly workers must be supervised to dissuade shirking, quality control must be
implemented to regulate piece wage workers, and salary workers must be given deadlines to
encourage performance.
All the wasted resources that go in to administering the checks and balances are clearly
indicative of a failed system. It seems that only broken systems need checks and balances.
But what is the solution or is there a solution at all? –Joint ownership.
Hans: The first loophole, the manipulation of the number of workers hired in order to keep wages low, can take two
forms. Either the hiring of more part-time workers instead of fewer full-time workers to save benefits, or having a
full-time worker work lots of overtime so that you don’t have to hire another worker with the associated taxes and
benefits.
Your double use of the term “checks and balances” is very funny, but the original version of your answer brought
the conclusion that only broken systems need checks and balances too early, at a point where the reader cannot yet
understand it. The first sentence of your second paragraph was: “Since we are talking about checks and balances,
it seems that only broken systems need checks and balances.” I transplanted the second half of this sentence so that
it became the second sentence in your third paragraph, and replaced it with something which I think gives a better
transition.
Message [552] referenced by [556] and [565]. Next Message by SnatchimusMaximus is [569].
[556] Tim: Re: Same money more work. I have to agree with SnatchimusMaximus
[552] in that the capitalist most definitely has the advantage over the worker when it comes

276 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
to wage and “stealing” wages from the worker. Here is an example of the loophole that
exists: My wife worked for a large company as a part time employee. She was required to
work only 30 hours a week but somehow she always ended up working 39.5 (just short of
“full time” and just short of full time wage and benefits. If she were to work an extra half
hour then the company would be required to treat her as a full time employee, but because
they kept her just under 40 hours then she was still considered part time. The company
was full of these “part time” employees, and was able to get full time work out of part
time employees with out the expense of full time employees. Capitalism took advantage its
position in the relationship and used its power to steal wages.
Next Message by Tim is [720].
[565] Hans: More Logic Please. Scott makes three errors in [545]:
(a) He confuses intensification of labor with higher productivity. When Marx talks about
higher productivity, he means a technical change allowing things to be produced with less
labor-time. The labor itself may be different but it should require similar effort by the workers.
If the workers have to work harder, this is called intensification of labor. Technical can
be designed such that labor is intensified, but for analytical purposes we should distinguish
higher productivity from intensitication of labor.
(b) Instead of looking how increased productivity affects piece wages, Scott answers how
lower piece wages affect “productivity.” Reversing the causality can lead to quite different
active mechanisms. (I put “productivity” into parentheses because Scott was talking about
intensity but he called it productivity.)
(c) Workers don’t like the lowering of piece wages, but this does not mean that workers
don’t like piece wages themselves. Some workers like piece wages because it allows them
to earn more money per hour by working harder, others dislike them because they tend to
increase the intensity of labor for everyone.
Scott’s answer is sloppy thinking. I expect more from you in this class. An example of
a thoughtful and also in part humorous answer is SnatchimusMaximus’s [552]. I gave it an
A+, a grade which I do not often give, because he came up with some original deep thinking
even when the deadline was looming.
Next Message by Hans is [567].
Question 684 is 696 in 2007SP, 675 in 2007fa, 688 in 2008fa, 719 in 2009fa, 783 in
2010fa, 808 in 2011fa, and 838 in 2012fa:
Question 684 If the capitalists make higher profits due to technical innovation, should the
workers get part of this?
[542] Andy: Yes. I think that the answer to this is very simple. Yes I believe that workers
should get a part of this because higher productivity means that there is higher wealth coming
out of the labor process which we are all a part of, so it should be shared. If it wasn’t shared
how would workers be motivated to do their job. Everyone needs to be in it together.
Hans: It’s not as simple as you think. There are good arguments saying that workers shouldn’t. Are you aware of
those, and how would you respond to them?
Next Message by Andy is [718].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 277
[553] Tim: graded A Technical innovation. The answer to this question is definitely:
it depends. There are situations where it is necessary for the worker to learn new skills
and receive training in order to use new equipment or use a new program. There are times
when advances in technology make a job harder or more complicated than it was before
the technical innovation. Some innovations can take a lot more effort in order to be able to
perform on the same level as before. There are also innovations that have been thought of,
and developed by the workers themselves. In all of these situations I think that it is proper
for a capitalist to share part of its higher profits with those that made it possible for these
innovations to take place.
On the other hand, I think that it would be wrong for the worker to feel that he deserves
part of the higher profits for innovations with which he has nothing to do. Also some innovations
might make one’s job easier to perform. If this is the case, and the worker had
nothing to do with the innovations then he has no right to the extra profits.
Next Message by Tim is [556].
Exam Question 692 is 401 in 1999SP, 496 in 2000fa, 525 in 2001fa, 565 in 2002fa, 594
in 2005fa, 696 in 2008fa, and 851 in 2012fa:
Exam Question 692 How does the illusion arise that the capitalist advances something to
the worker when he pays him a wage?
[650] Bennett: The Capitalistic Illusion. The illusion arises that the capitalist advances
something to the worker when he pays him a wage because the wage is what is received
for the worker’s labor. This is an illusion because the capitalist pays the worker the wage
with capital that the worker has produced himself with his own labor. The worker’s labor
(product) is taken by the capitalist and sold on the market, with the money that the capitalist
makes by selling this product he turns around and pays the worker’s wage. The view of the
capitalist paying the worker with money out of the capitalist pocket is an illusion, the money
used to pay the worker was generated by the worker himself.
Hans: Very good. I can also recommend my [2001fa:372].
Next Message by Bennett is [651].
Question 697 is 569 in 2002fa, 592 in 2003fa, 650 in 2004fa, 709 in 2007SP, 701 in
2008fa, 800 in 2010fa, 856 in 2012fa, and 800 in Answer:
Question 697 Sometimes a worker has to eat while working, like a machine which needs
fuel in order to keep going. Marx comments that “this, however, appears as an abuse.” Why
didn’t he write “this, however, is an abuse”?
[672] Ken: ulterior motive. Marx describes that there are two types of consumption;
productive consumption and individual consumption. “The laborer turns the money paid to
him for this labor-power, into means of subsistence: this is his individual consumption”.
Individual consumption is time that the worker takes for himself. This would include eating,
resting, and breaks. Productive consumption is when the worker is on the clock producing.
This would be an example of when a worker has to eat while working.
Marx comments that “this, however, appears as an abuse” because if the worker has to
eat lunch while working, not only is the worker benefiting but the capitalist is also. The

278 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
worker is reproducing while still producing for the capitalist. The worker must eat and
drink in order to be productive. If the worker is dehydrated and hungry the worker will not
be as productive. The capitalist wants workers in the most productive state. That is why
the capitalist is willing to give workers a break in order to eat, drink, etc. It appears like
the worker is benefiting from this individual consumption but the capitalist has an ulterior
motive. That is why Marx argues that it only “appears as an abuse”.
Message [672] referenced by [743]. Next Message by Ken is [676].
[743] Hans: Avocado Sandwich on the Assembly Line. Ken’s answer [672] has it
almost right, but not entirely, therefore I’d like to explain here the entire issue from the beginning.
First Marx makes the distinction between individual and productive consumption.
Productive consumption is the consumption of materials etc. in the production process, and
individual consumption is the final consumption of goods by the consumer. In productive
consumption, the value is transferred to the end product, while in final consumption it is
used up.
This is material from chapter Eight. In chapter Twenty-Three, Marx adds a new dimension,
namely: the final consumption by the worker is productive consumption from the point
of view of capital, because it reproduces the worker, the capitalist’s most important machine.
This is at first unintuitive. The worker who enjoys a good meal in the circle of his family, or
a relaxing weekend, may consider this a precious moment of his life – but as things are set up
in our society, this enjoyable activity is at the same time the reproduction of the commodity
labor-power.
This overall social connection holds because socially, the workers are the property of
the capitalists even when they are not working. The worker’s consumption is productive
consumption for the capitalist, whether or not the worker consumes his or her food on the
job. And of course the overwhelming part of the worker’s consumption is at home or perhaps
during breaks at work. But sometimes the worker does not even interrupt the production
process in order to eat: he or she grabs a bite out of the sandwich between handling the tools
and works while chewing. Here it is much easier to see that the worker’s consumption is
productive consumption for the capitalist; the worker’s food is here analogous to the fuel
consumed by the capitalist’s machines.
But eating on the job is considered an abuse: the capitalist does not like it because it
detracts the worker and the bread crumbs fall into the end product, and the worker does not
like to be put into this situation but demands decent breaktimes during the workday. Marx
calls this abuse “inessential for capitalist production,” because capitalist production does not
depend on it. There are easy ways to set up capitalist production in such a way that workers
do not eat directly on the job but in the lunchroom adjacent to the workshop.
The most offensive part of this is not the avocado sandwich in the worker’s mouth. The
most offensive part is that the worker’s entire life is subordinated to the needs of capital.
This is not considered as abuse, this is considered just and fair. I.e., what is really an abuse
does not appear as an abuse, is not considered an abuse, but on the contrary is considered
just. Only when the truth of capitalist society stares them too blatantly in the eyes do they
say it is an abuse, and hasten to re-arrange the surface relations so that the abuse is once
again safely covered up.

Another message where I say similar things is [2004fa:519].
Message [743] referenced by [2008fa:1024]. Next Message by Hans is [768].
U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 279
Question 700 is 653 in 2004fa, 602 in 2005fa, 712 in 2007SP, 691 in 2007fa, 704 in
2008fa, and 803 in 2010fa:
Question 700 Explain the sentence: The capitalist profits, not only by what he receives from
but also by what be gives to, the laborer.
[651] Bennett: The Capitalist Always Profits. The capitalist always profits from the
laborer. The capitalist profits from what the laborer gives the capitalist, this is simply the
laborer’s labor. When the worker gives the capitalist the product the capitalist sells the
product or service and makes far more of a profit than the laborer does. The capitalist also
profits from what he gives to the laborer. When the capitalist pays the laborer he is paying
the laborer with money that the laborer generated himself through his labor. The capitalist
also profits from paying the laborer because the laborer needs money to live on and the
fact that the capitalist provides this to the laborer makes the laborer come to work everyday
which in turn benefits the capitalist because he has more and more labor and product to sell
on the market. This is a continuos cycle that always leaves the laborer holding the short end
of the stick.
Message [651] referenced by [655], [657], and [660]. Next Message by Bennett is [770].
[655] Chris: capitalist’s profitability. I am responding to Bennett’s [651] because I feel
that there are a few justifications that can be made through his response. Bennett mentions
that “ When the worker gives the capitalist the product the worker sells the product or service
and makes far more of a profit than the laborer does.” From what I understand, the worker
makes no profit. Bennett’s comment makes me think that workers do make a profit; however,
the capitalists make the most. I think a better way to explain the profitability of a product
would be by saying that the worker creates the product through the use of the capitalist’s
ownership of production. The capitalist profits from the laborer because they sell the product
at a higher value than the laborer put into the product, hence, creating a profit which the
capitalist does not give back to the laborer.
I agree with Bennett where he begins discussing the capitalist’s control of the labor in
his final 3 sentences. However, I had trouble dissecting this argument from these sentences
due to his circular thought process. I would like to add and try to make it clearer in my own
words where I think the capitalist profits by what they give to the laborer. The capitalist
profits from what they give to the laborer through what they don’t give to the laborer. The
capitalist gives the laborer a paycheck, however, this paycheck is not equal to the amount
the laborer put into the creation of the product. In fact, it is usually less. By not giving the
laborer the full value of what they put into the product, the capitalist profits. Plus, they gain
control over the laborer because the laborer is usually struggling to make ends meet so they
must continually work whatever hours the capitalist tells them to work. This usually results
in a sense of false security for the laborer.
Hans: I think the sentence you quoted in your first paragraph had a simple writing error; Bennet meant to write
“when the worker gives the capitalist the product the capitalist sells the product or service and makes far more of a
profit than the laborer does.” Indeed, this is the version of the sentence in the archive now.

280 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Bennett’s sentence is still inaccurate because the worker never gives the product to the capitalist. Since the
capitalist has bought the worker’s labor power, the capitalist owns the product from the beginning. The worker
never owns it and therefore cannot give it to anybody.
Your own formulation is not quite what Marx had in mind either. It should read
“The capitalist profits from the laborer because they give the laborer a smaller value than the
laborer put into the product, hence, realizing a profit which the capitalist does not give back to
the laborer.”
Saying that Bennett has a “circular thought process” without showing any circles in his arguments is not helpful. I
do not have the impression that Bennett’s thoughts are circular.
Despite all my criticism I appreciate your close reading of Bennett and your attempts to improve his formulations.
Message [655] referenced by [679]. Next Message by Chris is [691].
[657] Nstew: In theory the capitalist always profits but not in reality. In response to
Bennett [651] I think that this example is oversimplified and that sometimes Marx creates
an image of the “capitalist” who is out to exploit people and to make as much money for
himself as possible. Let’s say that you have a laborer who makes boxes. The laborer is
paid $10 an hour, produces 1 box per hour, and works an 8 hour work day. Let’s then say
that the “capitalist” turns around and sells each of these boxes for $20. According to the
simplified theory one would say the “capitalist” is not only profiting $10 off each box the
laborer creates but also is robbing the laborer of the additional $10 that the box was sold
for. This doesn’t take into consideration overhead costs, material costs, etc... Let’s say that
once everything is paid for the “capitalist” is left with 10% so if he had one laborer who
is getting paid $80 per day, the capitalist is only left with $16. In order for the “capitalist”
to make as much as his employees he would have to have five employees making boxes
and they would each make $80 a day. Marx does not take into consideration the liability
a “capitalist” takes on by opening a factory or a shop and all of the expenses that go into
making it profitable. Once the “capitalist” takes on an employee he is now responsible to
pay that employee a daily wage which is another liability for the “capitalist”. Let’s then say
that the five employees decide they don’t want to work as hard and start only producing 7
boxes a day during an 8 hour period instead of 8 boxes. Then each of the laborers would be
making $80 a day and the “capitalist” would be left with $70.
I understand what Marx is saying when he is making the argument that the capitalist
is not only making money off profits from the commodities sold, but also from the excess
money he is not paying the laborer for what they produced. But I don’t agree with it because
the laborer is not taking on much risk where as the “capitalist” has now almost all of the
risk which includes paying the laborer the agreed upon wage even if the company is not
profitable.
Hans: Your criticism that Marx “sometimes ... creates an image of the “capitalist” who is out to exploit people”
was anticipated by Marx. He wrote in 92:1:
To prevent possible misunderstandings, let me say this. I do not by any means depict the
capitalist and the landowner in rosy colours. But individuals are dealt with here only in so far
as they are the personifications of economic categories, the bearers of particular class-relations
and interests. My standpoint, which views the development of the economic formation of
society as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible
for relations whose creature he remains socially, however much he may subjectively raise
himself above them.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 281
Marx’s critique of capitalism is the critique of an entire social system, not of the individuals who play a role in this
system.
Individual capitalists may think their profits are justified by risk or liability. According to Marx, neither risk
nor liability create value. Marx is asking where the value comes from which the capitalists reap as profits. As he
sees it, sleepless nights of a worried small business owner do not create value. But the labor of the majority of the
population who work full time and never get ahead economically creates this value. In fact, small business owners
are often members of the working class who try to escape their class position. Their difficulties show the depth of
the economic trap in which the majority of the population find themselves.
Message [657] referenced by [658] and [660]. Next Message by Nstew is [764].
[658] Goethe: Nstew [657] seems to be confusing the small business owner with the
capitalist owners of production. The small business owner may try to play the role of a
capitalist, but the large corporations will eventually kill him by the very methods he attempts
to emulate.... Look at small town America before and after a Wal-Mart sets up shop!!! I think
you will need to be sent to CousinIt’s re-education camp for the Marxist impaired....
First Message by Goethe is [22].
[660] Rmuscolino: In response to Bennett [651], I agree that the capitalist always profits
from the laborer. The capitalist profits from the laborers because of unproductive consumption
along with the production and reproduction of the one means of production that’s indispensable
to the capitalist: the laborer himself. By converting part of the capitalist capital
into labor-power, the capitalist augments the value of his entire capital. He profits not only
by what he receives but also by what is given to the laborer.
Hans: When Bennett said “the capitalist always profits” he did not mean that capitalists cannot lose money. Nstew
[657] is right that some capitalists do lose money. But Bennett meant that the capitalist benefits from both sides of
the transaction with the laborer. Reading your answer I have the hunch that you might have been thinking about
it that even if the capitalist loses money, this does not relieve the worker from his dependence. On the contrary, if
capitalist business is bad, the workers are the ones who suffer most. At least this is what you should have said in
order not to simply ignore Nstew’s objection.
Next Message by Rmuscolino is [661].
Question 703 is 408 in 1999SP, 503 in 2000fa, 532 in 2001fa, 573 in 2002fa, 597 in
2003fa, 605 in 2005fa, 715 in 2007SP, 806 in 2010fa, and 862 in 2012fa:
Question 703 Regarding the question to what extent consumption is productive, Marx says
that the individual consumption of the laborer is unproductive for the laborer, but productive
for the capitalist and the state. Comment on this.
[641] Jeremy: Keeping the man down! Life is a vicious cycle for the laborer. Like all
men, the laborer desires to live, but to live, basic needs such as food, shelter, and clothing
must be met. The only means by which to acquire such things is to give of his labor-power
in return for wages. These wages are then returned to the capitalist, as he is the producer
of the clothing, landlord to the shelter, and land owner from which the food is grown. The
laborer has just given all that he has made in wages to extend his days on earth. The capitalist
has used the desire to perpetuate life as a means to gain wealth. Thus we have the cyclical
trend for the life of a laborer, who at no point is able to become productive because he and
the labor-power which he possesses will be used to maintain his life and only prolong the
invisible bondage to the capitalist.
Message [641] referenced by [645], [646], [647], [659], and [2010fa:946]. Next Message by Jeremy is [674].

282 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
[645] Goethe: graded A In response to [641] Jeremy has some basic ideas correct about
labor consumption; it is true we all need the necessities of life to survive and our most
efficient source of such are the capitalists owners of production, the question here is how,
and why this is unproductive. First of all I would like to comment on the brilliant insight of
Marx; I am amazed by his observations and ideas from a century past, and how relevant they
are in today’s world.
Our society is structured on consumption, we all want more. This is the fuel that powers
capitalism ... We want to keep up with the Jones’s ... Veblen calls this “pecuniary emulation”
.... I bring this up in reference to an observation I experienced while volunteering on the
ski bus with my daughter and her peers. I overheard a conversation between a group of 4th
graders about the brand of video gaming systems they owned, one had an x-box, another
claimed a play station, and one an x-box 360, and another a play station 3. This went on
and on; each child trying to better the other with the objects of desire; these youngsters were
exhibiting true pecuniary emulation. What I took away from this was the realization that our
consumption habits start at a very young age.
As we become more empowered to consume we also become entangled in the web of
capitalist exploitation. I want to dedicate more time to my education, but I am trapped in the
working world. I think this is what Marx is getting at, and what Jeremy alludes to in [641].
The productivity gained by the capitalist and the state (I assume Marx is referring to the
government “state”) is the continued want and perceived need to consume goods that are not
necessary. The unproductiveness of the laborer comes from the consumption of cheap crap.
This is the nail in the coffin of the worker; by spending his paycheck the day it is cashed,
and never being able to escape the social class life has dealt.
The bigger picture here is that consumption and overproduction by the capitalist is unproductive
for the capitalist in the long run. The emission of fossil fuels into the atmosphere
from producing, transporting, and disposal of goods hurts everyone.....
I would love to have a conversation, or even listen to what Marx would say about the state
of our society. I think the closest I will get is the Environmental econ class Hans is giving
this summer.....
Cheers All... and remember it does not matter how much you can do as long as you make
an effort to do something; we all need to start somewhere.
Message [645] referenced by [646]. Next Message by Goethe is [658].
[646] Hans: Trapped by Our Physical Needs. Jeremy’s answer in [641] was a good
representation of Marx’s own argument: the laborer’s private consumption is unproductive
for him because he never gets ahead but has to show up for work for the capitalist day-in
day-out.
In Jeremy’s sentence “The capitalist has used the desire to perpetuate life as a means
to gain wealth” I would write “need” instead of “desire.” The capitalist benefits from the
workers’ need to perpetuate their lives and allows them to do just that, perpetuate their lives,
and not go beyond it.
Goethe, in [645], brings in two aspects which were not mentioned by Marx but which are
very relevant today:

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 283
(a) Consumerism. At Marx’s times the workers were not seduced by cheap trinkets, they
could barely feed themselves. I don’t think Marx would have predicted that shopping in
fancy shopping centers would become a favorite pastime for the working class. I don’t share
the guilt about this which I sense in so many contributions submitted class over the years. I
think the working class is saying: “if you reduce us to consumption machines, then let’s at
least consume in style.” This shows the spirit and creativity of the masses, and I am looking
forward to the times when the masses have more relevant things to do than play computer
games.
(b) Environmental disaster. I think there is a connection as I tried to say in [578]. The
struggle between capitalists and working class never came to a decisive victory for either
one, but the bonanza of cheap energy due to fossil fuels allowed both of them to make gains.
Now this bonanza has come to an end, and the old class struggles arise in a new form, as
a fight whether the capitalist are able to shift the costs of the switch to renewable energy
to the working class, or whether the profit motive itself has to be dethroned as the ultimate
principle governing production.
Next Message by Hans is [656].
[647] Nstew: In response to [641]: What if the “capitalist” who owns the factory where
the laborer is spending his wages is not running a profitable business. What if “the man /
capitalist” is struggling more than the laborer to cover his overhead costs and still provide
life’s necessities for himself? In any instance when a “capitalist” buys a factory or starts a
company and hires on laborers they now have to provide them with the daily wage agreed
upon. The “capitalist” is the person who is carrying all of the risk. If the company is not
profitable and he is unable to produce a profit which in turn causes him to close his company,
he is now liable for all the debt and expenses the company has accrued. The laborer in this
situation walks away without a job but can easily go find another one.
Hans: Some capitalists lose money, especially new businesses. But the big capitalists on average make lots of
money. Marx does not explain that with risk because risk taking does not create value. Marx explains this by
something which actually creates the value the capitalists reap.
Message [647] referenced by [679]. Next Message by Nstew is [652].
[659] Rmuscolino: In response to Jeremy [641], life is a vicious cycle for the laborer. And
the only means to acquire such things like food, clothing, and shelter is to give labor-power in
return for wages. But as stated by Malthus’ Definitions, etc., “The workman is a productive
consumer to the person who employs him, and to the State, but not, strictly speaking, to
himself.” I like this statement because it’s describing how the capitalist production process
can work. Of course the laborer has to work to earn a living, which is their trade off to give
work for food, clothing, and shelter. But to answer the question to what extent consumption
is productive, Marx’s idea that the individual consumption of the laborer is unproductive for
the laborer, but productive for the capitalist and the state is called unproductive consumption.
The extent where consumption would be productive would be when consumption is equal to
the minimum.
Hans: As I already remarked in [628] and your resubmission [634] which you haven’t seen yet, you are reading
the text too superficially. The reading assignments require thought, this cannot be done in a hurry.
First you need to understand the difference between individual and productive consumption as given in 717:1.
Your last sentence above refers to 718:1/o: the capitalist considers only that part of the worker’s consumption
productive which covers the bare minimum of maintaining his livelihood; everything going beyond this is
unproductive to the capitalist.

284 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Marx supplements this view by looking at the worker’s consumption from the point of view of the worker, with
the result that all individual consumption is unproductive for the worker.
Next Message by Rmuscolino is [660].
Question 706 is 578 in 2002fa, 602 in 2003fa, 661 in 2004fa, 608 in 2005fa, 718 in
2007SP, 697 in 2007fa, 710 in 2008fa, 742 in 2009fa, 835 in 2011fa, and 865 in 2012fa:
Question 706 Explain how capitalist production, just by the fact that it is happening, reproduces
the separation between the worker and the means of production.
[661] Rmuscolino: Capitalist Production Reproduces the Separation between the
Worker and Means of Production. Capitalist production, just by the fact that it is happening,
reproduces the separation between the worker and the means of production. “It thereby
reproduces and perpetuates the condition for exploiting the laborer. It incessantly forces him
to sell his labor-power in order to live, and enables the capitalist to purchase labor-power
in order that he may enrich himself.” [723:2/o] This creates a society that’s separated by
classes. They confront each other in the market as buyer and seller, and forces the laborer
to convert his product into a means by which another can buy him. This division of society
is the result of the continuous repetition of the capitalist production itself, where Marx calls
this process the capital relation.
Hans: This is good, but more of your answer than you yourself indicate is literal quotes from Marx. Please be
precise with delineating which formulations come from you and which come from Marx. There is also a difference
between reformulating a thought in your own words and paraphrasing someone else’s formulation. I consider your
little essay not entirely a paraphrase, but close to it.
Message [661] referenced by [666]. Next Message by Rmuscolino is [667].
[666] Bmellor: bound by invisible threads. I agree with Rmuscolino [661] that the
capitalist production process is a vicious cycle, “[reproducing] and [perpetuating] the exploitation
of the laborer.” The owner binds the worker with “invisible threads.” The worker
makes a wage of subsistence and then he is forced back into the labor maker to sell his labor
power. The capitalist is enriched by the fact that he offers the laborer a meager wage forcing
him to always rely on the capitalist to use the means of production never giving the labor
the opportunity to get ahead because he is always focusing on just keeping his “head above
water.” The worker is forced to sell his labor power because he is estranged from the means
of production.
One way workers are manipulated today in the same fashion, Marx may not have predicted
student loans and health insurance. Upon graduating you need to pay off student
loans and you will always need insurance. Employment offers a solution to both of those.
Not only are you dependent upon the means of production but you are also dependent upon
the “benefits” and steady income.
Message [666] referenced by [2008fa:1050]. Next Message by Bmellor is [668].
Term Paper 708 is 926 in 2000fa, 926 in 2001fa, 826 in 2002fa, 826 in 2003fa, 826 in
2004fa, 826 in 2005fa, 724 in 2007SP, 700 in 2007fa, 744 in 2009fa, 811 in 2010fa, 838
in 2011fa, and 868 in 2012fa:
Term Paper 708 Essay about Chapter Twenty-Six: Secret of Original Accumulation

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 285
[771] FacistFrank, Inter, and Jenn: Chapter Twenty-Six: In review. Executive Summary.
At this point in Das Kapital, 873:1, Marx has explained to us his theories on how money
is changed into capital, and how through capital surplus value is made, and from that how
more capital is made. But now the question is what started this cycle? We are in a chicken
and egg sort of situation where one creates the other, then the other returns the favor and
creates its creator, this is a great real world example of Dialectic that Marx adapted from
Hegel. All of these components presuppose each other, but how can this be possible, that
would leave no starting point to capitalist accumulation. That is the goal of this chapter to
discover the beginning.
Hans points out in his annotations that another important presupposition to capitalist production
is that the producers must be separated from the means of production, because they
are in the control of the capitalist, but then this is an after effect of accumulation. As Marx
puts it, it seems to move in a defective circle. So where is the original accumulation? Well
Marx begins his exploration by examining the capitalist explanation for the eginnings of
this accumulation; the origin must be noncapitalist, in order to presuppose capitalism. In a
nutshell the capitalist explanation for this is that a long time ago there were people that were
smart and hardworking, the feudal elite, and the lazy, stupid peasants. Since the elite were
good and the peasants bad, the elite evolved into the good capitalist, and the peasants into
the bad workers. Marx compares the ridiculousness of this explanation to the ridiculousness
of the original sin fable in the bible. Marx describes original sin and the capitalist original
explanation as anecdotes, which at best can only describe surface relations of real things
occurring, this capitalist explanation of the origins of capitalism are insufficient. Marx proceeds
to logically eliminate this as a possible explanation for the beginning of capitalism
because the supposed originally industrious feudal elite, has now become the lazy that does
nothing, where the supposed lazy peasant is now the one that works to themselves to the
bone. Marx now compares this to a childish property fable meant to keep children from
being bad and breaking the rules, but he has proven it false. More evidence that Marx uses
to disprove this fable is that the past was rife with violent exploitation, as opposed to their
idyllic explanations; this violent fact is conveniently left out of the capitalist’s explanation
for his own beginnings, and the explanation of other capitalist economists in Marx’s day.
In paragraph 874:1/o Marx introduces the idea that in order for commodities, such as
labor, and means of production to be considered capital, they must be able to separately
come into contract with one another. However this relies on the assumption that laborpower
is itself a commodity. Marx explains how labor-power is a commodity because of the
separation of the means of production and the lack of access to the means of production by
the laborer, leaving him with just his labor to sell. In essence, the capitalist system can only
exist where the means of production and labor can interact as capital. Marx further states,
that once the capitalist system begins it will be able to constantly reproduce the separation
between the means of production and the laborer. Marx makes it clear at this point that
“original accumulation” is the process by which the means of production and labor become
separated.

286 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Another way to look at this is to consider the functioning of nature. On the one hand
there are plants, and on the other, there are animals. In and of themselves, neither plants nor
animals can constitute an ecosystem. It is only at the point where these two groups interact
that we see an ecosystem. Animals (humans excluded) are unable to produce their own food;
therefore they are forced to center themselves near certain plants to receive substance. This
forces us to presuppose that even though both plants and animals are living things, they are
separate from one another. It is because these two living things are separate that we have
an ecosystem. After the ecosystem has been created, it is able to reproduce and maintain
itself (until humans destroy it). “Original accumulation” in the case of our ecosystem is the
process by which animals and plants became separate.
Marx begins with the statement in 875:1 that capitalistic economy has emerged from
feudal economy. Marx continues to examine the social transition that seems to “lever” the
economy into a capitalistic society. In medieval times, the social structure has been referred
to as a “feudal society.” Feudal society seems to be a term combining feudalism, a term used
to describe the political structure, and manorialism, which describes the economic structure
of Western Europe at that time.
Feudal society could be defined by its dispersion of governmental power, social classes
such as lords, peasants and serfs, and a primarily agrarian economy. The presence of warriors
is prominent, and much of the social order is determined by knights and warriors. It begins
with a King, who delegates plots of land out to lords, who in turn help to provide for the
other militia at that time. The lords also allow peasants to live on part of their land, in a
manorial fashion, in exchange for a portion of their produce or labor-power. The economic
aspect of this society minimizes the use of money, and is primarily focused on the need
for subsistence for each person. Although there is a landlord and a peasant class, similar
to a capitalist-worker relationship, the accumulation of capital does not seem to occur in
quite so circuitous a manner as in capitalism. The manorial economy appears to emphasize
commodity exchange rather than the use of a general equivalent.
Marx states that the dissolution of feudal society set free the elements of capitalist society.
Perhaps one of these elements is the rise in use of money. Chapters Two and Three of
“Das Kapital” discuss the natural progression from a commodity-exchange society to a more
efficient C-M-C process. In the following chapter, Marx describes the M-C-M process, in
which money is used to purchase commodities with the single purpose of acquiring more
money. In the beginning of chapter 26, Marx relates a basic law of physics to an economical
principle, and points out that if something can not be created from nothing; there must be an
origin of capital, from which more capital accumulates.
Another element that may lead to capitalism is the fact that the laborer is no longer attached
to the land. In a manorial economy, the lords allow for peasants to live on part of their
land, in a manorial fashion, in exchange for a portion of their produce, or labor-power. The
peasants are obligated to the lords of the land on which they reside, although they may have
obligations to other lords as well. In capitalism, the laborer is free to sell their labor-power to
whomever they choose, regardless of their place of residence. In 875:2, Marx explains that
though this gives the illusion of freedom to the serfs, it converts them to wage-workers, thus
removing the obligation of the lord, or capitalist, to provide means of production or means

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 287
of subsistence for their workers. This is the first illusion which starts what Marx might call
the downward spiral of illusions rampant in capitalism.
Marx concludes chapter 26 by summarizing that capitalism stems from the change in societal
structure, or revolutions, and the illusionary freedom of a new capitalistic society often
appeal to the men whose means of production are torn from them, laying the groundwork
for his future analysis of other examples of transitions from feudalism to capitalism.
Next Message by FacistFrank is [833], Next Message by Inter is [858], and Next Message by Jenn is [860].
[775] Andy, Papageorgio, Paul, Scott, Slash, Wade, and Carterryan: Marx starts
this chapter by stating that he has now explained “how money is changed into capital; how
through capital surplus-value is made, and from surplus-value more capital.” He then goes
to say that this seems to be an ongoing circle and there had to be something that started this
circle; this is because capitalism requires a class of individuals that have an adequate amount
of wealth, or capital, already to invest into the system to make a profit from it. The event that
Marx supposes preceded the eventual transformation into capitalism was that of “primitive
accumulation.” This accumulation as Marx states was “not the result of the capitalistic mode
of production, but its starting point.”
In the next paragraph Marx tells us how this event of primitive accumulation is somewhat
equivalent to the story of Adam and Eve from the Bible. In that story Adam took a bite of
the forbidden fruit and from this act sin fell upon the human race. This can be compared to
primitive accumulation since during this period is when the corner stone of the capitalistic
system was put into place and poverty fell upon a certain set of people. Marx then goes to
explain that there were two sorts of people during this time. First, there was the intelligent,
hard working, penny-pinchers. Second, there were the lazy that would spend all their money
in “riotous living.” While this seems to be a justifiable comparison Marx notes that there is a
tremendous difference in the two stories. This is that while in the story of the original sin all
of mankind now was befallen with the burden of sin, while the act of primitive accumulation
only burdened the “lazy” people who would end up being cast into poverty, not the intelligent
because they would end being the capitalists. This is because as these people accumulated
their capital the others were forced to sell only themselves. So from this point, as Marx
states, “dates the poverty of the great majority.” Marx then goes on to tell that these events
were made possible by “conquest, enslavement, robbery, murder, briefly force...”
In the third paragraph Marx makes clear how now that a certain few accumulated wealth
how they were then able to convert that wealth into even more by using the capitalistic
system. He states, however, that this is only made possible under certain circumstances.
The first is that these two groups of people explained above now must come face to face in
the market. The owners of the wealth now are also the owners of the means of production
and of the subsistence needed to make given commodities, and who also are determined to
increase their overall capital. The second circumstance is that the others must be free to sell
their own labor-power. Marx describes these people as “free laborers,” first for the obvious
reason that they sell their labor-power but also for the fact that they do not own any part
of the means of production. With these two circumstances taking place the “fundamental
conditions of capitalistic production are given.” So, in hindsight, the single greatest event

288 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
that led to capitalistic production was that of separating the laborers from the possession of
the means of production.
Marx then goes to explain that the “economic structure of capitalistic society has grown
out of the economic structure of feudal society. The dissolution of the latter set free the
elements of the former.” To understand this it is first important to understand what exactly a
feudal society consisted of. Feudal society was the social order of much of Western Europe
during the middle ages. It is characterized by mainly two types of people. First, there are
the peasants or serfs that would often work on the farms to provide subsistence for everyone.
Then there were the lords who would provide protection for the peasants and also provide
them with enough subsistence to survive. The land, however, in this society was believed
to not belong to anybody, but actually belong to God. But during this time of primitive
accumulation it is believed that the lords began to take ownership of the land and kick the
serfs off of it, severing them from the means of production. Through this act Marx explains
that these laborers who used to be the immediate producers and tied to the land in which they
worked were now required to become sellers of their labor-power in order to survive. These
people then had to go out into the market and find work. In doing this they were transformed
from the producers of goods merely to that of wage-workers. Through this process these
new “freedmen,” as Marx calls them, were stripped of any of their means of production.
Marx goes on to say that the forceful taking of the means of production from these people
are “written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire.” This only confirms was
is affirmed earlier that this transition period, the primitive accumulation, was one which the
poor people who became the wage workers did not want to happen, but it was violently
enforced upon them by the owners of wealth.
In the following paragraph Marx begins his analysis of the industrial capitalists. These
people were the ones who eventually were able to take the power, and the source of wealth,
away from the lords of the feudal society. A large cause that aided in the industrial capitalists,
who started out merely as merchant capitalist, usurping the wealth from the lords
was that since the lords had emancipated all of the their peasants and serfs from their land,
those workers were now forced to sell their labor-power to sustain. The industrial capitalist
were then able to hire this new abundance of people and hire them as wage workers. The
capitalists were then able to obtain a large amount of wealth, and before long, they were able
to build factories for production and industrial capitalism was put into effect.
Marx concludes by stating that the “starting-point of the development that gave rise to
the wage-laborer as well as to the capitalist, was the servitude of the laborer.” This clarifies
that the primary circumstance that led to capitalism was that the laborers, “divorced” of their
means of production and needing subsistence to survive, were forced to become the wage
laborers simply because they had no other choice.
In conclusion, we see that this time of primitive accumulation that fell between the collapse
of the feudal society and the establishment of capitalism was one of great turmoil
and mayhem for the greater part of the people involved. Hans states in [2005fa:1443] that, “
sometime in history there must have been a non-capitalist process in which the direct producers
were separated from their means of production, and the capitalists could amass enough
money to hire them as wage laborers.” Given this, Marx paints us a picture of the means of

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 289
production and the means of subsistence being brutally seized from the workers through any
means possible. The new privileged class of capitalists was then able to force these people
into wage labor, and by doing this was able to expand their wealth. Through these acts we
see the exploitation that takes place in capitalism.
Hans: At the beginning of your essay you describe certain explanations rejected by Marx as if they were Marx’s
own explanations.
Message [775] referenced by [777]. Next Message by Andy is [869], Next Message by Papageorgio is [788], Next
Message by Paul is [787], Next Message by Scott is [791], Next Message by Slash is [797], Next Message by Wade
is [794], and Next Message by Carterryan is [831].
[777] Kapital and Raynold: In choosing the “Secret of Original Accumulation” in chapter
26, I found a couple key points that Marx pointed out to help explain why we are placed
at different standard levels of living in our society. First off, Marx explains how there’s a cycle
that’s been going on between the capitalists and the free laborers which produces means
of production. He uses the term “primitive accumulation” to help explain the beginning of
this great transformation which produced capitalists along with its workers, the free laborers.
Because free laborers had nothing but themselves to give up, the capitalists owned all
the means of production which gave them an increase in overall capital. In understanding
the transformation, Marx splits the population into two types. The lazy people who splurge
and the hard working people who save. This is how capitalism evolved. The hard working
conservative people eventually rose to power by being capitalists and the unfortunate
other half had nothing to give up but themselves which Marx labeled them free laborers.
They (laborers) had no choice but to enter the capitalist system or else they’d face poverty.
Wealth is what became of these capitalists making them stable and helping bring up the
lower classes who were in great need of this change. Today, we can call this conservative
group our founding heroes of humanity.
I think this story relates to our society today. We see workers being exploited everyday in
different parts of the world and this is because the capitalists are in full control, like it or not.
I learned that there are consequences for every action you do. Whether its being productive
or unproductive, there will always be a pay off. We are living a life of incentives which is
critical because it will shape us into what we want to become in the future.
Hans: You write “because free laborers had nothing but themselves to give up, the capitalists owned all the means
of production.” The causaility is the reverse: Because the capitalists owned all the means of production, the free
laborers had nothing but themselves to give up (sell).
And just like [775], you mistake explanations strongly rejected by Marx as Marx’s own.
First Message by Bennett is [175], First Message by Kapital is [777], and First Message by Raynold is [204].
[805] Hans: Termpaper Discussion. Term papers are no longer accepted. This question
number is for the discussion of previously submitted term papers, not for new term papers.
Someone just tried to use it to send a term paper through. Such submissions will be ignored
and they will also not show up in the archives, so don’t waste your time.
Hans.
Next Message by Hans is [832].
Term Paper 709 is 932 in 2000fa, 932 in 2001fa, 832 in 2002fa, 832 in 2003fa, 832 in
2004fa, 832 in 2005fa, 727 in 2007SP, 701 in 2007fa, 745 in 2009fa, 839 in 2011fa, and
869 in 2012fa:

290 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Term Paper 709 Essay about Chapter Thirty-Two: Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation
[776] Dyoung, Spawnblade, and Brody: According to Marx the tendency of capital to
accumulate has been driven throughout history by three ideas, which are declared in Ch. 25.
First we have the statement “Capital can only increase by exchanging itself for labor-power,
by calling wage labor to life.” This means that without labor, capital cannot accumulate, it
is dependent on labor. Furthermore if capital could not exploit labor then it would cease to
hire those workers.
Second Marx states “The labor-power of the wage worker can only exchange itself for
capital by increasing capital, by strengthening the power whose slave it is.” With this statement
Marx tells us that labor is one of the causes for the accumulation of capital and if it did
not allow for, and facilitate this accumulation then capital would not hire it because there
would be no room for profit. We can see throughout history that most of the time labor was
either forced to work for free such as in slavery or serfdom, and even today labor seems to
undervalue itself and the surplus value that it creates for capital.
Marx’s third idea is “increase of capital is increase of the proletariat, that is, of the working
class.” The increase of proletariat is what helps move the accumulation of capital to its
next level. For every increase in the labor force there is subsequently a proportionate increase
in capital. Capital therefore uses the additional capital to hire the next labor input or
in other historical times to buy the next slave to help increase its accumulation.
While petty production must evolve into capitalism through individual specialization and
the acquisition of private property, so to must capitalism evolve towards socialism. This
theory arises from the tendency to centralize capital in an effort to increase efficiency as per
the “immanent laws of capitalist production itself.” Just as there is always a larger fish, there
is always a larger capitalist. This is seen frequently as capitalists wish to grow ‘larger’ by incorporating
other capitalist’s capital into their own. In this method, the means of production
slowly congregates into single holdings where eventually, in theory, there will only be one
holder. Where Marx implies this to lead, is to socialism. If only one capitalist holds all the
means of production, it would not be allowed. It must be an organization that can protect the
means of production. This leaves two options (not stated by Marx, yet implied historically
and logically found through previous chapters): A government, or the people themselves.
In a way these two options are the same. The government should be composed of the people,
for the people. However the world is not a stranger to corrupt governments, and this
fact makes the option of a central body more difficult to regulate. When the people run the
economy, however, it could equate to the small socialist communities spread throughout the
world who practice these doctrines. These have proven the system could work; yet no largescale
examples could be accounted for. There is of course one other flaw in the continued
expropriation of capital: The law. As it stands, most countries have extremely strict competition
laws in place that includes the regulation and dispersal of monopolies. This is a result
of people believing it best to ensure ‘fair competition’ and to keep the economy as efficient
as possible. Yet this is still a roadblock in the way of ‘natural’ expropriation. Meaning it
must be forced by the people or government themselves out of an informed desire to evolve

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 291
the system. On inspection, the only flaws in Marx’s theory are that of the flaws of the human
condition, including that of the laws set by society.
Marx goes on to say that the process as a whole is a dialectical negation of negation. Capitalism
is the negation of the private property based on own labor. But capitalism produces
its own negation. The result of which will be the joint ownership of the means of production.
He also sums up the historical processes of earlier accumulation and the changing aspects
of capitalist development, especially the processes of centralization of capital and the class
struggle which Marx argues will bring the overthrow of capitalism.
Marx believes there is a transformation that takes place among the capitalist class. In the
beginning stages of production, agriculture, manufacturing, etc, the proprietor is the owner
of his own private property. The exploitation of the laborer comes next. Dissolution comes
from this and the laborer is enslaved once again. Marx says “the transformation of scattered
private property, arising from individual labor, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a
process, incomparably more protracted, violent, and difficult, than the transformation of capitalistic
private property, already practically resting on socialized production, into socialized
property.”
Marx focuses on the class struggle against capitalism between the Government and the
people. Marx goes on to talk about the fact that laborers are isolated, exploited, enslaved and
degraded. He also states that the lower classes, the small manufacturers, the shopkeepers,
the artisan and the peasants all fight against the capitalists who are the means of social
production and the employers of their wage labor. It seems to me that Marx believes that
the laborers are well disciplined, organized and united where they would try to overthrow
the system. I don’t think that this would ever happen however. But I think it comes down
to being able to survive in a world with both the capitalist and the laborer. I don’t feel that
the exploiter always wins, but I think it is a combination of what is best for society. This is
a hard idea to have work in society, we do need laborers and capitalists to exist. So we need
to figure out how to have both co-exist in an equal fashion. Both sides benefiting together.
First Message by Brody is [54], First Message by Dyoung is [2], Next Message by Gerund is [815], Next Message
by Mitternacht is [784], Next Message by Spawnblade is [813], and Next Message by Tim is [785].
[778] Alcameron, Samantha, and Wasatch: Chapter 32: Historical Tendency of Capitalists
is leading to Revolution. Marx has clearly stated and proved throughout Das
Kapital that the historical tendency of capitalist accumulation is to exploit the masses, and
other capitalists in a ever long pursuit of profit. But beyond that in Chapter 32, he poses
this question “What does the primitive accumulation of capital, i.e. its historical genesis,
resolve itself into?” Marx then launches the reader into an analysis of property, how moving
from collective to private property has allowed capitalists to thrive. What began as a great
movement toward individual land rights, allowing serfs to own their own land quickly becomes
the “dwarf like property of the many into the giant property of the few”, where the
proletariat is paid a wage rate determined by a capitalist who has moved them away from
the modes of production. This movement was done through the “merciless barbarism” of
capitalists, moreover capitalists are nondiscriminatory, they will exploit all they are able to,
including other capitalists, meaning that fewer and fewer in the general population will be
land owners and own any private property.

292 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Through the amount of barbarism and expropriation on the working class, which now
includes old society capitalists, one day enough individuals will collectively see their own
exploitation and will grow to such large numbers that they will no longer allow the few bourgeoisie
to control the land, the value of labor i.e. the wage-rate and the modes of production.
In the footnote Marx makes one of his boldest statements that “what the bourgeoisie, therefore,
produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers”, which further emphasizes his belief in
the coming dissolution of the capitalist system. This final point has been of much discussion
in our group and is the focus of the remainder of the paper. Specifically the discussion is
broken into two groups Team A is arguing that government intervention against monopolies
and for the protection of workers, has successfully destroyed this inevitability of revolution,
that government policies indeed do have the ability to curb the insatiable appetite of capitalists.
Team B is arguing the working class is continuing to be exploited, and that government
intervention has just delayed the start date of the coming revolution.
Team A: Economists see the role and impact of government intervention with regard to
labor laws and workers rights differently. Marx believes that any government intervention is
merely delaying the uprising of the workers against the capitalists and a complete revolution,
that the nature of capitalists is such that they will always continue to grow and eliminate
others from the market, regardless of what government regulations are put into place.
This is not the reality in which we currently live, if Marx had seen the anti-monopoly
laws and regulations on work days and child protection laws, it is plausible to believe he
would have believed in the effect of government regulation more. The regulations placed on
corporations in the United States have an effect, such that no capitalist is able to control an
entire market. Anti-monopoly laws ensure that there are always a certain number of capitalists
in the market and that other capitalist are able to enter the market, which means that there
are not fewer and fewer capitalists, they are always changing. Indirectly these government
regulations effectively stop any revolution that would take place with the workers. By not
allowing any one particular capitalist to control an entire market there are always alternatives
for laborers who are unhappy. If an employer refuses to make a concession or compromise
for its laborers the laborers will obviously be unhappy. Through government regulations that
promote competition there will always be another capitalist fighting for labor that can gain
an advantage by making those concessions or compromises thus averting a revolution.
Team B: Team A is mistaken to believe that capitalists will ever offer concessions and
compromises in the long term and will not try to exploit workers. In the model of reality
you have just created there is no structural unemployment, laborers can easily move from
one job to another and some capitalists see benefits to better compensation. Marx has mentioned
time and again that it is the relative powerlessness of the proletariat in negotiation
with capitalists that have perpetuated the cycle of exploitation that the proletariat faces unemployment
by demanding concessions and even with other employers in the market does
not mean that concessions will be granted. One needs only look at Wal-Mart to see that
government anti-monopoly policies have not benefited the worker, as Wal-Mart offers considerably
less wages and benefits then other stores but will consume those stores if possible.
In a very real way, Wal-Mart is the ultimate example of the capitalists feeding on other capitalists,
but because of government regulation against monopolies in a market, they have
actually bought more of the back end producers and also their distributors, lowering prices

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 293
to such a point that competing companies in those markets, in order to stay in business must
decrease wages and benefits. Eventually they will go out of business and then Wal-Mart will
gobble them up as well, or at the very least will try to. Government regulation has made
capitalists smarter, by diversifying their portfolios but it has not been able to change their
underlying tendencies.
Team A: Of course capitalists will also try to pay the lowest wage possible. In most
markets workers are replaceable, so if a laborer decides to leave heir employer because they
refuse to accept a low wage, there is always another laborer in the market who will step
in and take that job. Team B argues that this immediately leads to a certain uprising by
the laborers and a revolution against the capitalists? Well, again the government steps in to
appease the laborers. The government has many programs, such as welfare, that fill voids
for the laborers created by their capitalist employers. These programs allow the laborers to
meet their basic needs while selling their labor at a low wage to the capitalists.
Possibly the most crucial aspect of the government’s intervention is that it is ever changing.
Issues that exist today may not have been issues decades ago. In our day retirement
plans and health benefits are almost demanded by certain laborers while in the early 1900’s
these things were non-issues. The government constantly intervenes to appease the workers
and avert any possibilities of a revolution by the laborers. This intervention will ensure that
there is never an uprising or revolution by the laborers.
Team B: This appeasement that you speak about cannot last forever, and you assume
that government will always be able to appease. Instead look at the lack of ability by the
government to appease currently, healthcare has been a major problem for at least the past
decade and nothing has changed, employers have been able to not give benefits for a long
time, the government is appeasing them, not the workers. Team A assumes that just because
we have not had a revolution, that we will not have one, which is completely without basis,
revolutions, especially for economic purposes occur frequently throughout the world. The
current unrest at the inability of government to resolve even the basic issues supports the
idea that a revolution is definitely possible, because government may reach a point when the
capitalists, who are becoming fewer and fewer control the government and then only seek
the exploitation and not appeasement. Appeasement by and large only delays the inevitable,
it does not get rid of low wages or lack of ability to own land that the proletariat still face,
government can mask capitalism to make it look like workers aren’t being exploited but that
doesn’t mean that they actually aren’t.
Conclusion: While true that during Marx’s time government intervention was solely looking
out for the employers and not the employees, it is not so completely one-sided now.
Minimum wage laws, child protection law and working day laws do protect the worker at
least to some degree, giving them some slight power to be used to combat the bourgeoisie
controlling the system. Revolutions are always possible, but the working class raising up to
overthrow the “owners of production” is and will be unless it occurs a theological discussion
where much can be discussed but facts can be given on both sides. Team B is obviously correct
that patches are just that, merely patches and don’t actually fix the solution, but Team
A uses that argument effectively to say that the government will always be able to patch just
enough to ensure that no revolution ever takes place. Time, it appears, is the great sifter of
Marx’s theory.

294 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Message [778] referenced by [800] and [816]. Next Message by Alcameron is [795], Next Message by Samantha
is [842], and First Message by Wasatch is [109].
[800] Sparky: A Critique of Chapter 32 Term Paper. The essay [778] on chapter 32
started out very well, explaining Marx’s thoughts on property and the general movement
from lots of property owners to the progression of a few wealthy landowners. Moving into
the history of Capitalist exploitation and the general unrest that it can produce through the
exploitative process – and the leading up to a great revolution in which the future holds no
place for capitalists.
The term paper then splits into factions, teams A and B in which they take opposite views
and provide a discuses them, which was very enjoying! But there where just a few points
that I wanted to discuss that I felt lacked in the discussion they received in the paper. Team
A states “impact of government intervention with regard to labor laws and workers rights
differently” and continues the whole paper to discuss the how this is so, only once does Team
B discuss how capitalist and government are really the same thing – “Because government
may reach a point when the Capitalists. . . control the government” I personally feel that the
may in this statement has come and gone, Capitalist are most certainly behind the helm of
the government and have been for a long long time – the founding fathers of the U.S. were
all business men with substantial money and land – not to mention holders of slaves!
Team A next says “Indirectly these government regulations effectively stop any revolution
that would take place with the workers. By not allowing any one particular capitalist to
control an entire market There are always alternatives for laborers who are unhappy.” Which
to the worker is only saying if you don’t like it, then beat it. The powerlessness of the worker
is shown in that statement, by all means you don’t have to love your job but at the same time
you do not have to despise it. As for simply moving away and trying something else, well
the capitalist will only be in the new location ready to exploit you even if you can afford to
move – which the capitalist is trying to stop you from doing!
Team A continues with “government steps in to appease the laborers. The government
has many programs, such as welfare,” “These programs allow the laborers to meet their basic
needs while selling their labor at a low wage to the capitalists.” Meaning a simple worker is
nothing but a slave to the system! Always forced to take scraps thrown to them by others, the
reason a worker works is to provide for him/herself and their family why should you work
if that still does not provide! As far as the benefits go, they are still being paid by an amount
being taken out of your paycheck as well as taxes – and at this point of time large capitalists
are often paying less taxes than regular workers! “This intervention will ensure that there
is never an uprising or revolution by the laborers” Hardly the case Team A this intervention
I believe is only stoking the embers of revolution, keeping them nice and hot and ready to
burst into fire.
First Message by Sparky is [66].
[816] Tim: graded A discussion of Samantha’s term paper. In reading Samantha’s paper
[778] I was impressed with how the group was able to look at both sides of the issue and
argue both sides. I think that both groups were able to present their opinions and both groups
were able to give valid arguments as to the tendencies and habits of the capitalist. The topic
of the two group’s arguments is a very interesting one because of the fact that government

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 295
intervention seems to care about certain monopolies and not others. Group A did a good job
at describing the impact that government intervention has had on stopping the revolt of free
laborers. I think that they agreed with Marx but said that he would probably change his mind
were he to see the regulations that are in place today. I think that it would be hard to know
what Marx would think but I am sure that, just as group B stated, Marx would not agree
that Wal-Mart is properly regulated today. Group B was able to effectively use Wal-Mart
as an example of how government regulation has no effect on certain companies. To Marx,
Wal-Mart is the Capitalist Monster that we should all stay away from and I think group B
effectively showed that regulation does not solve any problems it only delays them. I think
that both groups showed very good arguments and did a fine job.
First Message by Tim is [339].
Term Paper 710 is 933 in 2000fa, 933 in 2001fa, 833 in 2002fa, 833 in 2003fa, 833 in
2004fa, 833 in 2005fa, 730 in 2007SP, 702 in 2007fa, 714 in 2008fa, 746 in 2009fa, 813
in 2010fa, 840 in 2011fa, and 870 in 2012fa:
Term Paper 710 Essay about Chapter Thirty-Three: Modern Theory of Colonization
[770] Bennett: At the beginning of chapter 33 Marx introduces to the reader that there
are two distinctly different types of private property. The first kind of property is what we
as a society generally view as our private property. It is the property that is strictly used for
the survival of the owner, for example food, clothing and shelter. This type of property is
a direct result of the owner’s labor, rather than exploiting hired laborers and profiting from
them. The second type of private property is a capitalist owned property that is entirely
dedicated to the generation of capital by using the surplus-value taken from the capitalist’s
wage-earners. In both of these examples of private property, wealth in generated by labor.
Marx explains that the capitalist property owner’s pursuit of capital (second type of private
property) eventually squashes the first type of private property.
Next, Marx talks about colonization. He gives two examples of colonizing. The first is
the capitalistic way, using machinery and thousands of working-class citizens to labor for
the betterment of the colony. The second way is these working-class citizens working the
land that they live on for themselves. Producing their own means to live with their own
unexploited labor. Marx explains that the first way of colonization does not work, the means
through which the workers would be exploited and used by the capitalist were not set in
place, and rather this way backfires. The second way is much better and highly productive.
When the workers work for themselves they are much more productive because if they do
not succeed then they will not live. If the workers work the land for themselves the only
incentive they need is that they control their quality of life.
Wakefield continues this point, explaining that in the new colonies the capital produced
only becomes capital when it is exploited. Before its exploitation it is a product of necessity
to the laborer that produced it. But Wakefield thinks that there aren’t very many workers to be
exploited in the new colonies. People came to these colonies to make their own way of life.
Wakefield says it best “If all members of the society are supposed to possess equal portions
of capital ... no man would have a motive for accumulating more capital than he could use
with his own hands. This is to some extent the case in new American settlements, where a

296 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
passion for owning land prevents the existence of a class of laborers for hire.” (Capital Chap.
33)
Because there was a lack of workers for hire in the American Colonies, Wakefield believes
that this is why slavery began in the US. Plantation owners needed workers that could work
their lands for cheap wages and at the same time produce a high number of crops and in turn
a large amount of capital. But there was a lack of workers for hire so sadly slavery was the
answer for nearly all plantation owners.
This chapter was interesting to me because Marx explained the difference between the
two types of personal property and what ways and strategies were used successfully and
unsuccessfully in the colonization processes.
Bmellor: You talk about how Marx investigates the differences between the two property types. Why are these
two definitions of private property necessary? Marx makes a point that the capitalist has in essence destroyed and
deprived the ability of the individual worker’s own private property. Marx gives his explanation for coming to this
conclusion by defining the differences between these two property types. And as you said the first type of property
is owned and used by the owner for his personal benefit, the second is more devious and is used to exploit the labor
of others. Wakefield’s solution to the labor shortage, Marx uses to show the hypocrisy of the system.
Hans: Lots of connections missed, and you didn’t even get to the punchline of the chapter, the policies which
Wakefield proposed for the colonies.
First Message by Bennett is [175].
[779] Chrisw, Ryoung, and Sparky: Term Paper – Colonization. Has capitalism always
existed? Some have said that capitalism has existed ever since the beginning of the fall of
Adam, while others say that it continues to evolve. But has capitalism always existed in
all places at all times? Was capitalism in existence at the conception of all countries and
settlements? Or did it evolve slowly from the market place?
Capitalism in the early settlement of the colonies took upon a transition phase; in fact
capitalism really did not even exist at its conception! England, the mother country as E.G.
Wakefield calls it, was capitalist society at its peak! At that time in England private property
consisted of two different kinds, one of which was something made from the labor of the
producer himself, and the other was in the exploitation of the labor of others for personal
gain.
At the conception of the colonies only the first type of private property existed consistently.
The very producer himself and which did not involve the exploitation of labor by
anyone else produced private property that existed without exploitative means. Because of
this, a capitalist society did not have the means to exist since capitalism can’t thrive without
the exploitation of others and their labor, and this is why capitalism did not have the foundation
in which it could grow during the earlier times of the colonies. The wage laborer is an
essential cornerstone to the capitalist it would seem, since when a man who is not compelled
to sell himself out of his own free will there can be no extortion of him by another.
Although E.G. Wakefield believed that England tried some time to enforce the Act of Parliament,
which aimed at manufacturing wage-laborers in the colonies, it did not last. Most
of those that came over from England were those that came for the very reason capitalism
was failing, the opportunity to own their own land and to produce their own goods. This act
of trying to exploit those in the colonies was known as systematic colonization. The people
that came over to the colonies depended on their own hands and their land to provide for the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 297
necessities of life another. Wakefield’s example is brought in which merely states that when
there is plenty of land for many to own, there is absolutely no reason for that man to sell
himself to another since can provide for himself. Whereas in Europe the average man – read
worker, does not own his own homestead and cannot accumulate for himself.
During this time extra capital was not produced by the means of others working to producing
goods at time/piece wages for others. The majority of the labor that was performed
was the labor that was accomplished by the owners themselves. In fact most of the people
who needed clothes, furniture, housing, food, and supplies would not go to the store and
purchase their goods they would construct or grow them for themselves. They were a selfsufficient
people that did not depend on the labor or goods of others to survive. Because of
this and the lack of wage labor there was not much of a market place and therefore there was
not a foundation for a capitalist society to exist.
With a free colony, where one simply has to set foot and claim a piece of land as his
own, while still leaving the same opportunity for any others that follow in his path, this was
the ability that made them so much more resistant to capitalism, since that automatically
decreases the available supply of wage laborers, since many of these free men and woman
till there own soil as well as practice many other trades/skills such as homemaking, furniture
making, candle making, etc.
Whereas in Europe there is a whole population of wage laborers that merely reproduce
another generation of wage laborers, and even produces a surplus of these wage laborers,
keeping capitalist exploitation secure by making the workers dependent of the capitalist. But
is not the case in the Americas, since every new generation has more than enough room to
grow outward into unclaimed land (disregarding Native Americans who have already spent
thousands of years living there of course) and still leaving the wage labour population not
only under populated but in a position of always losing workers to the freedom of owning
there own land and living in such a way that the capitalist is not required. And even if
the capitalist were to “import” his own supply of wage laborers to do his bidding, there is
nothing stopping them form simply walking out the door and into the great wide open which
was America and staking there own claim! Leaving the capitalist in a position of always
wanting a simply and servant worker to do his will with out fear of him simply leaving him
in need. And could eventual become his rival!
Wakefield goes on to say that the Americans are in a woeful state whose own independence
and fragmentation will work against them, since no great undertaking can ever take
place since there is no capitol or dependable wage earner to provide the necessary work to
accomplish the great task, since the means of production was split amongst so many! Then
starts to explain that if only a steady source of poor, unknowing immigrants where in ready
supply would with which to draw a steady supply of labor would a great work be carried
out! States Capitol in an example provide by Wakefield.
But Wakefield’s descriptions of American people do not show the lowly, underfed and
often uneducated stock of the European worker, but a people of “well to do, independent,
enterprising, and comparatively cultured” persons. Going on to say that in England often
time a workhorse is better fed that a farm worker!

298 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
The beginning of the end is set into motion for the free and plentiful Americans. Where
the colony no longer lets you merely stake your claim and take land for yourself wherever
you feel, but rather you must pay the colony for any land that you may wish to own to
the government, setting any new immigrants in a position where they must become a wage
laborer as soon as they arrive for a period of time significant enough for the capitalist to take
a large share of profits from, to become a dependent worker of the system for a long period
of time before they have any hopes of becoming the independent land owner that was so
easily obtained in the past.
Under this plan, put forth by Wakefield, the worker population would be constant, with
the price of land just out of reach for the typical time-wage worker so as to create the situation
where they must work for years instead of months or even days like in the old system. But
the true advantage of this situation is that the wage laborers would produce more capital
than that which they started from, producing more capital for more workers, coming in the
future, to work with! Holding the people at ransom for something that Nature simple had
given and could be taken at will, the price tag put upon the land by the government, primitive
accumulation, was a tool which capitalism used to begin its reign upon the Americas.
All this has made America no longer the “promised land” for people trying to leave
behind the great aristocrats of Europe, but rather a Capitalist haven, starting fresh with all
the mistakes and problems of the past washed away and left them with a fresh population of
excess workers to do the work of a few. But the colonization of the Americas simply proved
to show that the Capitalist system of production and accumulation does not have to be a part
of life, and that an individual worker, working for him self truly can succeed.
Message [779] referenced by [828]. First Message by Chrisw is [779], Next Message by Ryoung is [819], and Next
Message by Sparky is [800].
Question 712 is 220 in 1996ut, 301 in 1997sp, 297 in 1998WI, 729 in 2008fa, 830 in
2010fa, 858 in 2011fa, and 892 in 2012fa:
Question 712 Is a capitalist free to decide whether to expand his business, and how much
of his profit to use for personal consumption? Which mechanisms, if any, constrain him or
her?
[701] Ryoung: Is a Capitalist Free to Decide? Is a capitalist free to decide whether to
expand his business, and how much of his profit to use for personal consumption? According
to our readings a capitalist is not free to decide whether to expand his business because
there are more factors that influence an expansion than a mere decision. Any person in the
world is free to chose whether or not they will try to expand their business, and they can do
everything in their power to help that business expand but that does not necessarily equate to
expansion. For example in order for a business to expand there must be: production, labor,
consumer confidence, consumption, quality products, capital, etc... Some of these factors
we can control but the majority of them we can only influence if we are lucky. We can not
control the amount of consumption, or the consumer confidence, or the state of the economy,
we can only hope that all those factors line up so that it will help us sell our products which
will help us expand our business. This is why we can’t exactly control all expansion we can
only attempt to expand and hope that everything else allows us to do so.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 299
Is it up to the business owner to decide how much profit he can use for personal consumption?
Yes it is up to the business owner to decide how much profit he will consume but
it should depend on his financial commitments and his goals for his business. If an owner
finds himself in a time of desired expansion he will have to be willing to consume less of
his profits so that the business may benefit. He should also have to see that all his financial
commitments are met first before he decides to take all his profits. This is a plain question
that should be answered easily by each individual business owner however I believe that it
is not handled by all business owners in the appropriate way. Many let the money and greed
get to them which causes them to be dishonest. This greed dishonesty cripples their business
and those that are involved with it.
Hans: Despite your caveats that individual efforts cannot necessarily make things happen, capitalism acts in many
cases like a dream come true for the most greedy individuals. I.e., there is some concordance between individual
greed and capitalist social structures. The capitalist is the beneficiary of social structures which he didn’t set
up, although he may be politically active trying to maintain them or to get additional goodies from government.
Question 712 tries to explore how far this concordance goes. Does capitalist individual decision making have a say
in the social rate of accumulation, or is this ratio determined by economic factors?
Message [701] referenced by [704], [705], [764], and [2008fa:1083]. Next Message by Ryoung is [779].
[704] Dentist: beaten to the punch. Well much to my surprise, between checking for
already submitted responses to this question and my own composition of such, Ryoung [701]
has beaten me to the proverbial punch. Rather than revise my submission, I have chosen to
submit it as is.
Upon selecting this question, I became quite surprised to find that there has been little
attention (at best) given to this question. I suppose my interest in questions surrounding
freedom isn’t as popular as I would have hoped.
In any case, I did find one little blurb mentioned by Hans as a response to a submission
made back in 1998 (IDAHO [1998WI:259]).
The phrasing of the question seems to imply an answer of yes he has some freedom, but is
ultimately constrained by. . . something. And I would say that yes, the capitalist is ultimately
free to choose in both cases. However, there are also at least two forces, which can constrain
or influence these decisions.
Hans has suggested these two mechanisms that restrain the capitalist’s freedom, firstly,
internal drive. This can be defined in many different ways; greed, competitive nature, and
passion are a few that immediately come to mind. So how will these internal natures restrict
a capitalist’s freedom? Not too surprisingly, ALL seem to lead him toward the same end,
MAXIMIZATION!
I suppose I should clarify the definitions of my various “internal drives”. By “greedy
capitalist,” I mean a an owner who uses every conceivable avenue to find some way to put
another dollar in his pocket.
I use the term “passionate” to describe an owner who truly loves what he does/produces or
believes that his business can positively change something. Finally, the competitively driven
capitalist; this is the business owner who driven to win, he draws his feelings of satisfaction
from the defeat of others

300 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Let’s take for one example the greedy capitalist case, here we find a business owner who
is sucking every possible penny from his business so that he may take it home and consume;
he is maximizing HIS profits.
In addition to the internal drive, there is external necessity. And just like internal drive,
the ultimate end is maximization and expansion. However, the reason for the results here
can be identified as the results of collisions between the various internally driven capitalists
within the same industry.
Building the case of our greedy capitalist scenario; he will continue to take the sum of the
profits home to support his lavish lifestyle until threats from either the passionate capitalist
or the competitive capitalist arise. Now in order to support his way of life, he must sacrifice
some profits in order to fund an expansionary effort and stay in business and continue to
sustain his appetites.
In the end, because of the nature of the capitalist system and its demands for infinite
growth, one way or another the result is always maximization.
Message [704] referenced by [705], [2008fa:1083], and [2008fa:1169]. Next Message by Dentist is [740].
[705] Sparky: A capitalist that forces himself on you. The first part of this question is
very intresting since you can look at it from the Marx stand point while still looking at it
from a more business-capitalistic point of view, having a foot on both sides if you will. First
off Ryoung [701] did go through Marx’s statement of why a capitalist cannot expand their
business, and I will only touch on some of those aspect since he did a fair job explaining
them in his e-mail. Since Marx’s time we have been in a world of Rockefellers, Gates,
and the like who have taken a proactive stance to the factors Ryoung mentioned – such as
production, labor, and consumer confidence. They have started “vertical monopolies” where
they do control the whole process from literally the ground up through production to as far
as consumption by taking hold of the whole market and forcing the use of their products
on the masses through moves through the goverment and advertising as well muscling out
the competiton or the goverment into protecting their business. While Dentist’s response
[704] to the question brings in other forces which he stated as internal drive and then gave a
definition of that as “an owner who uses every conceivable avenue to find some way to put
another dollar in his pocket” but then brings in the aspect of maximising his money while
reveling in the defeat of his competitors! While I do agree with his definition of internal
drive I do have to disagree with his of maximization – Above I brought in the example
of vertical monopolies – which control every aspect of production in order to ensure their
survival, while at first there is many, over time it slowly becomes a much smaller number
– How can this be if every business is trying to line its pockets while still maximizing its
profits? It is done by undercutting the competion with lower prices at first and then once
defeating them, they by bringing prices up to whatever level they can achieve where the
truly “greedy capitalist” pokes his head out of the hole and enjoys the maximization part of
the capitalist culture.
Ryoung’s statement “This is why we can’t exactly control all expansion we can only
attempt to expand and hope that everything else allows us to do so.” does have a kernel of
truth, just because you are expanding does not mean as a business that you are prospering,
times and technology change – A company building ham radios would have a hard time

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 301
maintaning business let alone expanding business! But a extremely large company, say GM,
does have the political clout and resources to put up a fight in which many fighting it could
not handle!
As for the second part of this question how much of a capitalist profit can he use for his
own personal consumption? I believe Ryoung hit it right on the nose, but I would like to add
the comment that businesses, and business owners, go bankrupt without a change in there
personal spending. And some of the larger companies, such as automakers, were laying off
thousands of employees while giving themselves bonuses of millions of dollars
Next Message by Sparky is [779].
[764] Nstew: Expansion. A capitalist is free to decide whether to expand his business
and how much of his profit to use for personal consumptions. Once a capitalist has surplus
capital he can either use the surplus capital for his own personal use or he can reinvest it
back into his company.
In order for the capitalist to expand his business he needs to reinvest his surplus-capital
back into his business. If he does not have surplus-capital then he needs to come up with
capital (money) in order to expand. This expansion takes place by buying more products or
materials than he has in the past to be produced. After buying more materials he then needs
to hire more laborers to produce the extra materials into the commodity he is selling.
Assuming the capitalist has access to excess capital in order to buy more materials than
he did the year before and is able to find more labor-power there is also the aspect of supply
and demand that is necessary for expansion as well. The market has a certain amount of
demand for a product or service and if the demand is higher than what the capitalist has been
supplying in the past then this will allow him to expand and be profitable.
Hans: Your contribution is in a similar spirit as Ryoung’s [701], which sparked an interesting discussion. Your
disregrd of this discussion affected your grade.
Next Message by Nstew is [789].
Question 713 is 716 in 2008fa, 749 in 2009fa, 817 in 2010fa, 844 in 2011fa, and 874 in
2012fa:
Question 713 Which use-values must be available on the market so that accumulation of
capital can take place?
[699] Ryoung: Accumulation of Capital. We learn that in order to be able to accumulate
capital there must be three things present! Number one we know that in order to create
more capital the decisions of the individual capitalist must be willing to reinvest some of his
proceeds to create more products to be sold. That is that if I make $100.00 off of selling my
yarn that I have spun I must be willing to return 60% of the proceeds back into the cost of
production so that I can continue to spin and sell more yarn. This is a simple concept that is
standard in most businesses.
Number two I must be able to provide products to the market in order for them to sell.
Once I spin and finish making my yarn I have to provide my yarn to the market in order
for it to be sold.

302 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
And number three I have to have the labor power available in order for the yarn to be
produced. An idea is only as good as and idea until you put it to work or start to produce it.
I may have the best idea in the world to produce the best yarn the world has ever seen but if
I don’t have the means/power to produce it it will remain an idea until I have the power to
do so! This is one reason that I would have to be willing to reinvest some of my proceeds
in order continue to produce. I would have to provide wages for the labor worked by the
workers. Not only would I have to provide wages but I would have to provide enough wages
in order to make them happy so that they may continue producing this yarn at a sufficient
quality!
These three reasons are essential in order to be able to continue to accumulate wealth.
Message [699] referenced by [748]. Next Message by Ryoung is [701].
[748] Jenn: graded A Accumulation of Capital. I think Ryoung in [699] has the right
answers, but they could be clarified better. He addresses three reasons that must be present,
instead of use-values as the question asked.
With respect to his first reason, he says we must have capital. However, I believe we have
to revisit the question “what is capital” if we want to use the word capital as a use-value. In
[2001fa:226], Cleo says “Capital is the sum of values, money, that expand by going through
a social process, that allows their value to increase.” Although I think one could argue that
capital is a use-value, since capital is actually a money commodity, one must have money as
a use-value in order to accumulate capital.
The most important use-value that must be available on the market is labor-power. The
definition of accumulation of capital is the application of surplus-value as capital, and its
reconversion of capital. This is not possible without the use-value of labor-power. As Marx
states, “It is only necessary for capital to incorporate this additional labor-power, annually
supplied by the working-class in the shape of laborers of all ages.” Surplus-value is used
to purchase the means of production and pay the workers to provide labor-power. Surplus
labor, or unpaid-labor results in a surplus-product. This surplus product is then sold and
converted to capital, thus completing the accumulation of capital. Labor-power is the only
commodity that has the ability to provide surplus-value to the capitalist.
Additionally, the means of production are another use-value that must be available on
the market in order for accumulation of capital to occur. In order for the labor-power to be
a use-value to the capitalist, the capitalist must have the means of production in which the
labor-power can be applied.
One interesting question that could be brought up is with respect to the stock market.
If you put money into the stock market, you can accumulate more capital. This can be
done without means of production or labor-power. Or perhaps the image of labor-power and
production is so far removed, it is easy to overlook. Any thoughts?
Message [748] referenced by [2008fa:1096], [2008fa:1166], [2009fa:1098], and [2010fa:1005]. Next Message by
Jenn is [750].
[765] Bar: graded B– surplus use value. The question is which of the use-values must
be available to the market for these conditions to exist, therefore knowing that use-value is

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 303
necessary value not conspicuous consumption. Essentially, what occurs is a use-value commodity
like food has to be produced outside of its natural supply and demand. If it were not
so, there would be no surplus value to reinvest, it would be a zero sum game, complete cancellation.
This is a perversion of the market because it is more than fulfilling a need, food for
example is overproduced when an individual only needs a certain amount to be comfortable
and if more food is not consumed capitalists will be unable to invest profits; the capitalists
are unnaturally glutting the market (pardon the pun). If an unnatural market doesn’t exist
there will not be accumulation of capital “In one word surplus value is convertible into
capital solely because the surplus-product, whose value it is already comprises the material
elements of capital.” This goes hand in hand obviously with labor surplus contributing more
to the exploitation of the worker through the perpetuation of overproduction.
Hans: Your theory that profits come from overconsumption is original and interesting, but it has nothing to do with
Marx.
Next Message by Bar is [814].
Question 716 is 719 in 2008fa, 752 in 2009fa, 820 in 2010fa, 847 in 2011fa, and 877 in
2012fa:
Question 716 How can the capitalist be compared with a conqueror who buys commodities
from the conquered with the money he has robbed from them?
[678] Matt: Like a thief in the night. When I think of the capitalist I think of only one
thing after taking this class, the rich stealing from the poor. The capitalist is only thinking
of his own wants and desires, and does not care who he pushes down on his way to the
top. He is nothing more than a thief, stealing labor-power to create surplus-value from his
workers. The Annotations say, this “is not only unpaid labor, but even the capital hiring this
labor comes originally from the laborer himself.” The capitalist is stealing the surplus-value
created by the worker to maintain his own unstoppable production of the commodity. Again,
it is this stolen surplus-value that is used to fund all the additional labor-power hired by the
capitalist. Each worker creates enough surplus-value to hire the next worker and the next,
like a domino effect. This is why Marx says every conqueror (capitalist) has used the money
(surplus-value) from the conquered (worker) to buy the commodity (labor-power).
Message [678] referenced by [2009fa:1083]. Next Message by Matt is [698].
[679] FacistFrank: When I think about this statement, at first it didn’t make sense. How
does the capitalist buy commodities, isn’t it the other way around? But then I thought about
it, and the capitalist is buying the commodity that the laborer produces at a very low price,
with the surplus value from the last goods that the laborers produced, hence the theft. The
commodity is worth much more because it had a lot more effort and labor used to produce
it.
However I think that Nstew [647] brings up some good points. I don’t know if this is
what he is trying to say, or maybe it’s in my own terms. There are degrees of capitalist
exploitation, some capitalists, or perhaps they are not even capitalists, but a higher cog in
the wheel of workers. Anyway some capitalists do not make any profit, but make losses,
because the market they are in is too competitive. Because the big capitalist like Walmart
uses the massive amounts of surplus value they have stolen to make their prices very low.
Which means the small capitalist or small business owner, either has to lower the price of

304 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
his good to match and can’t cover the costs of production, or keeps his price the same and
doesn’t sell any product and doesn’t cover the cost of production. This guy is stuck with
all the debt and liability. I guess the important question is this man a capitalist or another
exploited member of the system in a different form than the laborer? Or perhaps a failed
capitalist?
I also think that minimum wage laws ensure that the worker is given some amount of the
surplus labor, he is given a very small portion of it, just a little above the reproduction cost
of his labor, but he still gets a little.
What I think is really frustrating is that, if a business like Macdonald’s takes 10 billion
in profit one year, then only makes 10 million the next, the year is considered a failure, and
changes have to be made, it’s still stolen profit! They can’t be content with stealing just a
little, they have to steal a massive amount. If a new CEO was responsible for this loss in
profit, the stockholders would fire him quick and replace him with the guy that was stealing
10 billion. It makes it really hard to do the right thing in our society.
Hans: The capitalist is not buying the product from the laborer. As I said in [655] and elsewhere, the product
never belongs to the laborer, because the laborer has sold his labor-power. I.e., the commodity the capitalist buys is
labor-power. But before the workers get too happy about it that the capitalist invests his surplus-value into buying
more labor-power, Marx reminds them that the surplus-value was robbed from them. I.e., the capitalist first robs
the laborers and then turns around and buys labor-power from the workers with the money—or surplus-value—he
has robbed from them.
Next Message by FacistFrank is [688].
[697] Brandon: graded B Wal-Mart. I’ve noticed a lot of reference to Wal-Mart recently
in these discussion, in fact, I just got done with [696] responding to a free discussion regarding
them. I think that the really important thing to remember about Wal-Mart is that they
have broken a boundary in capitalism for which there has never been a precedent. Wal-Mart
is one of the largest corporations in the world today, and they do not produce a single thing.
They are retailers. The retail business has been nothing but middlemen for producers, who
sell goods at prices set by the producers based on supply and demand models. Yet somehow
Wal-Mart has been able to create an authoritative power over producers, essentially dictating
the price that they will sell the product at.
We should look at the Rubbermaid case. Rubbermaid entered an exclusive agreement
with Wal-Mart in the 1990s. Wal-Mart dictating the prices that they would sell the products
at and Rubbermaid agreed. But when the cost of resin – a raw material essential to plastic
production – rose, Rubbermaid had to raise prices in order to recover production costs. Wal-
Mart refused to raise prices on Rubbermaid products, and even dropped many Rubbermaid
products from its shelves as punishment. In short, Rubbermaid was forced into a merger
with Newell just to save its own skin.
Is this the rich stealing from the poor, as the question suggests? Yes and no. Rubbermaid
was by no means a poor, small company. However by entering these types of agreements
with name-brand producers, Wal-Mart is stealing from the smaller retailers who are rapidly
becomming conquered. The relationship of conqueror:conquered is Wal-Mart:other retailers.
It is almost impossible, to create a “mom and pop” retail store in the same town that
has a Wal-Mart. The city of Heber, here in Utah, has been fighting for years to prevent Wal-
Mart from entering their community; a community that thrives on small business. Grocers,

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 305
auto parts suppliers, clothing shops, electronics stores, etc are all affected by Wal-Mart’s
influence. The real question is, does this go against or perfectly coincide with free market
economics? Where is the line for success? I honestly do not have a direct answer to these
questions, but I would say Wal-Mart is challenging the laws of the free market to a high
degree.
Hans: Good little essay, but it is a little off-topic regarding question 716.
Message [697] referenced by [Answer:12]. First Message by Brandon is [68].
Question 717 is 720 in 2008fa, 753 in 2009fa, 821 in 2010fa, 848 in 2011fa, and 878 in
2012fa:
Question 717 In what way must the laborer “buy back the fruits of his previous labor with
more labor than they cost”?
[739] Aaron: Buy back the fruits of my labor. This is an interesting conundrum in
basically any market around the world. A capitalist who owns the means of production in any
market with any product, must make his profits by selling a commodity for more than what
it costs to produce the commodity. If it costs 10 dollars to make a book bag, the capitalist
would not sell his book bag in the market for 10 dollars... if he did this, he would make no
profit and therefore would not be a capitalist. He must sell his book bag for more than 10
dollars in order to make profits and stay in business. Therefore, if a laborer, who produced
the book bag, was in the marketplace and wanted to buy the book bag, he/she would have to
pay the going market price that the capitalist is willing to sell it for, for example 15 dollars.
Therefore, the worker knows what went into the production of the book bag, and some of
the costs (because the worker would know his or her own wage), but he cannot buy it for
that price. The retail price in the market must be paid. Thus, the laborer cannot buy back the
fruits of his own labor at the costs of his own labor, he must pay money that he has earned
in producing the book bag.
Bmellor: This is a great analogy, however you are also forgetting that if it costs 10 dollars to make the bag (labor,
materials, and the overhead associated with means of production) the laborer makes far less than 10 dollars. So even
if the bag was sold at cost he would not be able to buy it back for what he made on that particular bag. Meaning that
even if the means of production were socially owned the laborer would not be able to buy back the bag for what he
was compensated on that bag.
Message [739] referenced by [754]. Next Message by Aaron is [838].
[754] Inter: Surplus-value: a follow-up to Aaron’s answer. I agree with Aaron’s conclusion
in [739], but I will elaborate on the context in which Marx came to the conclusion
that the laborer “must buy back the fruits of his previous labor with more labor than they
cost.” The context to this conclusion is important because the concept of capital being created
by capital, illustrates an exponential growth of capital and a further reaching exploitation of
the worker, which is manifested by this conclusion.
Imagine our working-day time line A—B-C, as representing the annual production for
a capitalist. B-C represents the annual surplus-product, and when sold for money, the
surplus-value. Marx 728:3 describes surplus-product as “tribute annually extracted from
the working-class by the capitalist-class.” The surplus-value then becomes reinvested by the
capitalists (either by the original capitalist or a new one) in the form of purchasing of commodities,
and bringing in additional labor. Later the investment will also realize a surplusvalue
as well as the original investment. Thus we see the exponential growth of the capitalist

306 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
using free-labor to generate more capital. The idea of surplus-product and value is what
drives Aaron’s conclusion in [739].
Message [754] referenced by [768]. Next Message by Inter is [771].
[768] Hans: Prices are not too high; instead, wages are too low. On the surface of
the economy the capitalists seem to make their profits by charging too much; instead of
charging their costs they charge more than their costs. But if one thinks a little more about
it, it becomes obvious that this interpretation is problematic. It sees the source of profits in
circulation, although we know that circulation does not create wealth. Circulation moves the
already existing wealth from the producers to the consumers, therefore there are some gains
according to use-value, but this activity cannot be the source of the steady flow of monetary
profits made by the capitalist class.
Marx’s basic insight is that profits are not made in circulation but in production. In order
to flesh this out, he needs a theory of prices, and a theory of wages.
His theory of prices is the following: instead of thinking retail prices are somehow too
high because they contain markups over costs, let’s assume that retail prices are on average
the right prices. Marx says that these “right” prices are not determined by cost, but their
ultimate determinant is the total labor input into the commodity. I wrote here “total” because
it is not only the labor in the last production process, but the labor going into all materials
etc. The mechanism adjusting these prices to labor content does not go through cost, but
through the allocation of labor to those commodities which are in highest demand.
Now if prices are determined by labor cost, wouldn’t that mean that the laborers get all
the money? How can there be profits? Marx’s explanation here is that the workers in their
paychecks do not get as much value back as their labor produces. That is his theory of
wages. Wages just pay enough that the worker can pay his bills and show up again to work,
but this is much less than the value produced during the work time.
Let’s look at the book bag example in [754]. Assume for simplicity that each hour of
labor produces a value of $30, and that it takes 30 minutes overall to make a book bag and
the materials going into the book bag and the deprecitation of the machinery used, etc. Say
the book bag factory itself needs 10 minutes direct labor, and the materials etc. per book
bag cost $10 (representing 20 minutes of labor needed to produce these materials and their
inputs etc.) Then the retail price of the book bag is $15.
Now assume the worker makes $18 per hour. Then the cost of the book bag to the capitalist
is $10 materials plus $3 labor, i.e., $13. But the capitalist sells the book bag for $15.
(These $15 are not determined by the capitalist who adds some “markup” to $13, but by
multiplying the half hour of labor represented by the book bag by $30. This is important,
make sure you understand this!)
The laborer says now: “it takes me and my peers in the other industries together 30
minutes to make a bookbag. But if I want to go out and buy a bookbag, I must use 50
minutes’ worth of my wages. I.e., I must buy back with 50 minutes of my time the product
which I and my friends produced with 30 minutes of our time.”
Message [768] referenced by [2008fa:1124], [2008fa:1151], [2008fa:1168], [2009fa:1113], [2010fa:972], [2010fa:1004
[2012fa:1333], and [2012fa:1483]. Next Message by Hans is [805].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 307
Question 725 is 728 in 2008fa, 761 in 2009fa, 829 in 2010fa, and 891 in 2012fa:
Question 725 What does Marx mean with: “but original sin is at work everywhere”?
[712] Rmuscolino: “But Original Sin is at Work Everywhere”. Marx writes, “but
original sin is everywhere” to depict the meaning that as production develops, the capitalist
stops being the subordinate of capital. He uses this aphorism to describe how nothing
seems to overpower the capitalist. Marx goes on to say, “even though humans cannot remain
subordinate to God, capital can’t overpower the capitalist.” As the capitalist forgoes individual
consumption, he gains power by promoting accumulation. The quote, “original sin is
everywhere” is true because to accumulate, is to conquer the world of social wealth and to
increase the mass of humans exploited, and therefore to extend both the direct and indirect
sway of the capitalist. This ongoing conflict between consumption and accumulation in the
capitalist is a perfect example of original sin repetitively going on everywhere.
Hans: You are misunderstanding my comments in the Annotations, and I am trying to formulate this better for the
next edition. Instead of saying “nothing seems to overpower the capitalist” you should have said: “nothing seems
to overpower the human being who has slipped into a capitalist role.” Marx probably thought that Adam and Eve’s
insubordination known as the “original sin” was a good thing. In the long run, humans will not follow orders, they
will only do what they think it is right. Even the capitalist will not follow the “orders” implied in his role as a
capitalist. He will revolt against the systemic necessity to “accumulate, accumulate.”
Message [712] referenced by [2008fa:1158], [2008fa:1170], and [2010fa:654]. First Message by Rmuscolino is
[422].
Question 728 is 734 in 2008fa, 767 in 2009fa, 835 in 2010fa, 863 in 2011fa, and 897 in
2012fa:
Question 728 What is the “Abstinence Theory”?
[715] JPeel: graded C– Abstinence Theory. “He who converts his revenue abstains from
the enjoyment which its expenditure would afford him. It is not the abstinence, but the use
of the capital productively which is the cause of profits.” This passage, by John Cazenove,
describes the “Abstinence Theory” as a reward for work. Every human action can be viewed
as “abstinence” from its opposite. Hegel’s inversion “all negation is determination” is a good
example of this theory. Therefore, the “Abstinence Theory” depicts a process of decision
making and needs of the individual.
Hans: Your original submission had a writing error which completely changed the meaning of Cazenove’s quote:
where this corrected version here has “abstinence” you had originally written “capital.” Cazenove’s passage is not a
definition but a critique of the abstinence theory. Neither Cazenove nor the authors of the abstinence theory thought
that profits were a reward for work.
Your last sentence is apparently lifted from the following sentence in the Annotations: “The abstinence theory
therefore attributes a social process to the decision and merit of an individual.” With this I wanted to say that the
“abstaining” capitalist takes credit for a social process which is pretty much going on without him.
Next Message by JPeel is [806].
Question 736 is 319 in 1997WI, 387 in 1997sp, 384 in 1997ut, 582 in 2002fa, 606 in
2003fa, 665 in 2004fa, 612 in 2005fa, 736 in 2007SP, 707 in 2007fa, 741 in 2008fa, 774
in 2009fa, 842 in 2010fa, 871 in 2011fa, and 905 in 2012fa:
Question 736 The capitalist depends on the worker for profit, and the worker depends on
the capitalist for survival. Does this mean that workers and capitalists have the same interests?

308 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
[767] Bmellor: Not on the same page. The capitalist class needs the working class to
accrue more wealth; the working class needs to rise up above inhibition to prosper. Capitalist
holds down the working class. The working class cannot be free unless they abolish
“inhumane” working conditions. An example of why these two are not on the same page
is the following: Wages are used as an incentive to induce a worker to work. True, wages
are used by the working class as a means of survival. (Marx’s formula is hourly wage =
predetermined daily wage divided by hours worked). The capitalist uses this equation to
his advantage manipulating the hours worked by the worker in a single day. The worker
works for survival and to make his life better, but the harder he works the capitalist will
inevitably take all the more advantage of him. So in this sense they are not working for the
same interests. Just because you work harder at your job and put in longer hours doesn’t
necessarily mean you will be compensated accordingly, but even if you received additional
compensation your boss (he/she who owns the means of production) sees a benefit from your
increased productivity and he/she doesn’t have to do a thing.
Message [767] referenced by [774] and [781]. Next Message by Bmellor is [807].
[774] Matt: Money, the Common Denominator. Bmellor has pointed out a couple good
points in [767] as to what Marx was trying to say. However, I do believe that they do have at
least one similar interest under a society driven by the capitalist. A worker works to survive
by earning money, while the capitalist seeks for profit which also equals money. They are
both using the means of production for one thing, money. Money is the driving force that
brings the two parties together.
The part that I do agree with Bmellor on is when he says, “The worker works for survival
and to make his life better, but the harder he works the capitalist will inevitably take all the
more advantage of him.” This is a correct statement as the capitalist will only hire ‘laborpower’
if he can pay the worker low enough to make a profit, as the annotations say. This
low wage will keep the worker from saving, leaving only enough money to survive on.
This in turn will cause the worker to keep on working which only makes more and more
profit/money for the capitalists in the end.
Hans: See [2003fa:418] and the discussion there.
First Message by Matt is [43].
[780] Ken: love hate relationship. In society workers and capitalists are dependent on
each other. Without one, the other would not prosper. The capitalist’s focus is to accumulate
as much wealth as possible. He does this by maximizing profits and depends on the worker
to produce this profit. The worker’s focus is survival. In order to survive the worker must
make a wage. The worker looks to the capitalist for this wage. The worker and capitalist
have very different interests. The worker is working for a wage to survive. The capitalist is
maximizing profits for wealth. The motive behind the accumulation is diverse between the
capitalist and worker.
The worker and the capitalist are incompatible. They use each other to attain what they
want. The worker wants to obtain the highest wage possible. The capitalist is trying to
reduce costs and therefore wants to exploit the worker by paying the worker a minimal
wage. The relationship between the worker and the capitalist is a love hate relationship.
They are dependent on each other however they have very different interests and motives.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 309
Hans: You are making the relationship too symmetric. I agree that the capitalist uses the worker and needs the
worker, the capitalist would not be a capitalist without the worker. But I would not say that the worker uses the
capitalist, and the worker does not really need the capitalist either, arguably workers could produce much better if
there were no capitalists around.
Message [780] referenced by [781]. Next Message by Ken is [812].
[781] Kevin: graded A+ Do we really know what our interests are? There have been
some very good answers regarding this question and I think the right answer is a mixture
between Ken in [780] and Bmellor in [767] but Hans will say for sure.
As Bmellor says, “The capitalist class needs the working class to accrue more wealth.”
The working class create value which is what makes the capitalist profits. Also, Ken says
the worker needs the capitalist to survive and gets this from his wage. They both say that
because of this their interests are different, and I would not disagree because of the many
responses by Hans during 2005 Fall such as [2005fa:1538] and [2005fa:1583].
What’s very interesting though is that little is talked about the means of production. I
believe it is in the interest of both parties to own the means of production, the difference
being who is the party in possession of that means. This is where the interests of both parties
should separate, but they don’t.
The capitalist obviously looks to hold those means of production independent of any other
in order to exploit the workers who cannot produce things on their own. The worker would
be (and should be if he thought about it long enough) interested in possessing his own means
of production and thus be no longer exploited by the capitalist.
In response to [2005fa:1565] Hans says, “the workers are the ones with the ultimate
power, since their labor is the sole source of value and surplus-value.” Yet it doesn’t seem
that way in society because the workers allows the means of production to be held by the
capitalist who does nothing more than exploit them.
In reality, I don’t think the worker knows what his interests are. He knows he’s interested
in survival but because he’s so intent on bringing home a paycheck he doesn’t realize he’s
doing nothing to support what interests he really should have. I think because of that the
interests of the capitalist and the worker are the same only because the worker has no real
idea what his interest should be and by working to survive is feeding the interest of the
capitalist.
Message [781] referenced by [2009fa:1128]. Next Message by Kevin is [782].
[785] Tim: graded A Same Interests? It is interesting to think about the relationship
between employers and employees because they are almost always against each other. The
one wanting to make more money while the other is trying to pay less. I think though that the
answer to the question is somewhat in the question itself. The worker’s interests are survival
and the capitalist’s interests are profits. For the most part the worker is interested in his pay
check but he cannot receive a pay check if the company fails to make money. On the other
hand, the capitalist, in his quest for profits, would be out of luck if the worker had no need
for his pay check. So, in a sense they have the same interests because if the company goes
under then they are both not able to reach their goals. While it almost always seems that
there is a conflict between the two they seem to have the same goals in mind. Think of how
much more they could get done if they realized this.

310 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: A Marxist would of course say that the conflicts between employer and employee do have deep structural
reasons.
Message [785] referenced by [797]. Next Message by Tim is [816].
[789] Nstew: Are the workers and the capitalists working for the same thing??? On
the surface it seems like the workers and the capitalists have the same interest, money! The
worker needs money to survive and the capitalist needs profits, which are generated from
the worker’s labor power, to survive. But the difference lies in that the worker is looking
to survive while the capitalist is looking for a profit. So even though they both have the
common interest of money, their reasons for wanting it are completely different. Marx is
also talking about the differences between the working class and the capitalist. On a smaller
scale where you have a small business, the business owner and the employee might have the
common interest of survival. If the company is not profitable after paying overhead expenses
and the employees then the business owner does not make any money himself. But this is
not what Marx is talking about. Marx is talking about the differences in these two classes
and while they are both after the same thing, money, this doesn’t mean they share the same
interests.
Hans: Yes, it is important to look at the social structures (the class structures), not the individuals. Both worker and
capitalist have to survive, but workers and capitalists have very different social relations with their fellow human
beings. You are also right to distinguish the small capitalists from the big corporations. Big capitalists not only
exploit workers, they also exploit small capitalists.
Next Message by Nstew is [790].
[797] Slash: capitalist could care less. The capitalist is set only on making a profit. The
worker is only interested in survival, which is seen as a wage from the capitalist. This then
distinguishes them from having the same interests. Tim [785] says: “in a sense they have the
same interests because if the company goes under then they are both not able to reach their
goals” (goals meaning profits for the capitalist and survival for the worker). I disagree with
the tone of this, but would first like to point out the obvious that, yes both the parties would
like to accomplish their differing goals, but I find the way this is said is placing equality on
their relationship. Yes, the worker can provide a service for the capitalist, but the capitalist
has no real loyalty to the worker, the capitalist only cares about profit. The idea that the
worker is creating what we think of as job security by working harder will only appear to be
valid in times of profits for the capitalist. This sort of thinking places a responsibility of a
firm’s survival on the individual worker. A capitalist controls the means of production and
will only hire a worker so long as there is room for profit from the surplus labor. The way
I understand Tim leads me to think a capitalist would be willing to give up profit to ensure
survival for the worker. The truth is this happens today and the capitalist would fire the
worker and export labor overseas to save cost on labor and ensure profit well before letting
the firm close due to lower profits, therefor letting the worker know how much the capitalist
depends on his particular labor in a time of no profit.
Next Message by Slash is [798].
Question 743 is 743 in 2007SP, 748 in 2008fa, 781 in 2009fa, 850 in 2010fa, 879 in
2011fa, and 913 in 2012fa:
Question 743 What is the “juridical illusion”?

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 311
[786] Allen: Juridical Illusion. Marx wrote, “Eden should have asked: who created
‘the civil institutions’? From the standpoint he adopts, that of juridical illusion, he does not
regard the law as a product of the material relations of production, but rather the reverse: he
sees the relations of production as products of the law.”
Marx implies that juridical illusion is the creation of the law by individuals. Similar to
what Shannon [2007SP:1212] states in her comment, the laws are created by the actions of
society they are created in. They are a representation of material production because those
who created the laws create them to fit the society.
Message [786] referenced by [2010fa:1004]. Next Message by Allen is [829].
Question 746 is 398 in 1997sp, 395 in 1997ut, 675 in 2004fa, 621 in 2005fa, 746 in
2007SP, 717 in 2007fa, 751 in 2008fa, 784 in 2009fa, 853 in 2010fa, 882 in 2011fa, and
916 in 2012fa:
Question 746 What does Marx use the metaphor of a golden chain for? Why does he say
the chain has become heavier?
[772] Scott: golden chain. The metaphor of the golden chain is symbolizing the connection
between the worker and the capitalist. Even though the worker may be treated more
favorably and his wages may have increased he is still connected to the capitalist and is at
his mercy.
Remote [1997ut:381] clearly explains why the chain becomes heavier: “The chain becomes
heavier only to preserve and maintain the means of production as capital. The worker
is still a slave – only with slightly better treatment. This situation is conditional on the
capitalist’s ability to transform his surplus product into additional capital.”
You can also see the golden chain as a lifeline connecting the capitalist to the laborer. The
gold chain represents wealth and is necessary for the laborer to survive. The laborer now
sees his future as prosperous as long as he is attached to the gold chain. Being attached to the
gold chain the laborer will be able to, as Marx said , “extend the circle of their enjoyments,
make additions to their consumptions fund of clothes, furniture, etc., and lay by a small
reserve fund of money.”
Hans: This is quite modest wealth, i.e., the chain part of the metaphor is stronger than the gold part, and the lifeline
is very conditional.
Message [772] referenced by [2008fa:1199]. Next Message by Scott is [775].
[773] CousinIt: graded A Slavery is slavery. Marx uses the metaphhor of the golden
chain to say that slavery is slavery. A chain is a chain whether its made of gold or of iron. In
comment (or extension) upon Scott’s [772];
In the days of African American institutionalized slavery, you had the house slaves and
the field slaves. Some slaves were allowed to have small huts and a little plot of land to have
a small garden, yet they were still slaves, did not own anything, and were subject to the grace
of their masters.
This is still the case under capitalism. There are still ‘house-slaves’ (CEO’s and management)
and ‘field-slaves’ (laborers and shopworkers). The huts have gotten a little bigger, the
plots have gotten a little bigger, some freedoms have extended, and the range of mobility

312 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
has expanded a bit. Nonetheless, everyone is still under the yoke of the master. The huts
are actually owned by the banks and can be taken away anytime some group of capitalists
with the help of their friends in government decide that they want the peice of land to build
a freeway or a shopping mall. The Hummers are a lavish neccessity for keeping the machine
rolling and getting everyone to work “in style.” Even entertainment and leisure are really
guises for the other part of the slave’s duty to continually consume the products stolen from
him and sold back to him by the capitalist. Try not consuming anything anytime and see
how far you get!
No one is really free to do as they please. All activity is dictated by the demands of the
capitalist system. If you don’t think so, try getting up tomorrow and doing exactly what you
want to do and then keep on doing it for the days to follow. How far do you think you will
get before your activities are constrained by your cash-flow? How far do you think you can
go before someone notices that you aren’t getting with the program and marching lock-step
with the rest of them? Test the limits to your so-called freedom. See just how ‘free’ your
freedom really is.
If we think about how people are ‘surviving’ these days, piling debt upon debt upon more
debt, the metaphor of the golden chain that gets heavier and harder to bear, yet inescapable,
becomes very salient, and to some of us more than others. Those who are carrying such
debts indeed feel the growing weight of the golden chain connecting them to the capitalist
system.
The golden chain is an apt metaphor for the reality that you and I live everyday. It sure
looks pretty though...doesn’t it? The bigger the chain the greater the status. Ironic?
Next Message by CousinIt is [850].
[787] Paul: You can never escape the chain! Marx uses the metaphor of the golden chain
to describe the leash that the capitalist has on their laborers. The laborers are attached to this
leash for the fact that they are totally dependent on the wage they receive from the capitalist,
and they have no say in how much the capitalist pays them. But the reality is, is that the
laborer has attached themselves to this leash. Marx says that the chain only becomes heavier
when the laborer is given a raise. This is because with this new higher wage the laborer is
likely going to increase his expenditure to improve his quality of life. While the laborer is
now able to afford this because of his raise, he really is only becoming more dependent on
the capitalist because he now has even more things to pay for. While the laborer may feel
like he is beating the system by receiving a raise in his wage, he is really just becoming more
dependent on the system.
Message [787] referenced by [2008fa:1199]. Next Message by Paul is [801].
Question 748 is 332 in 1997WI, 405 in 1998WI, 429 in 1999SP, 524 in 2000fa, 554 in
2001fa, 594 in 2002fa, 618 in 2003fa, 677 in 2004fa, 786 in 2009fa, 855 in 2010fa, and
884 in 2011fa:
Question 748 Does the dependence of the workers on capital decrease when wages are
high?
[794] Wade: The dependence of the workers does not decrease at all, what happens is
the worker’s leash is simply lengthened a bit. With more cash flow the worker now has the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 313
means to buy what they want, such as better furniture, clothes, and so forth. The worker has
a sphere of comfort that they live within, they buy what they can without expanding outside
of this sphere, when the wages are higher the sphere is expanded and the worker now has the
ability to expand within that sphere. Hans uses the example “The golden chain which the
wage-laborer has already forged for himself, allows this chain to be loosened somewhat”.
The dependency doesn’t decrease at all, the worker’s “golden chain” is expanded a little, but
his or her dependency remains the same.
Next Message by Wade is [880].
Question 751 is 751 in 2007SP, 789 in 2009fa, and 921 in 2012fa:
Question 751 Explain how the relation between capital and wage labor can be characterized
as: “the absolute movements of the accumulation of capital manifest themselves as
relative movements of the mass of exploitable labor-power, and therefore seem produced by
the latter’s own independent movement.”
[795] Alcameron: Capital accumulation vs labor power. The question is basically
asking us which variable is the dependent and which is the independent, movements in
capital accumulation or movements in labor-power. These two variable are obviously closely
related and interconnected in their effects.
Let me use an example to illustrate how they affect each other. Let’s use Target because
we’ve been hearing too much about Walmart! Target executives decide that customer service
is what is going to set them apart from their competition so they want to double their staff in
every store. There will be costs associated with this but Target is ready to make this happen.
All of the sudden there are help wanted ads all over the city looking for employees at the
local Target. An observer from the outside might think that there is a shortage of labor and
Target really needs more people to stay afloat. In actuality though Target has decided to
use some of its capital to hire more workers as a strategy to outperform their competition.
The movement in labor power is a result of the action taken by the capitalist to have more
staff in every store. Nothing that the workers at Target did caused this sudden influx of
hirings, rather the capitalist has caused it with their absolute movement of the accumulation
of capital.
The flip side of this example works as well. Target decides they’re spending too much
money on needless workers and they let go a large portion of their labor force. Nothing the
laborers did or no decisions they made cause this action, rather the absolute movements of
the accumulation of capital as directed by the capitalist are the independent variables which
cause changes in the dependent variable of exploitable labor power.
Hans: Your examples simply say that the buyer of a commodity (here the buyer of labor-power) makes the purchase
decision, not the seller.
Marx’s statement is not about individual decisions, but about overall market trends: if there is a general glut
or shortage of labor, it is only rarely caused by changes in the labor-supply, but usually by changes in the labor
demand by capital.
Next Message by Alcameron is [796].
Question 754 is 334 in 1997WI, 557 in 2001fa, 792 in 2009fa, and 861 in 2010fa:

314 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 754 How does the fetish-like character of capital discussed in the Accumulation
chapter differ from that of the commodity discussed in chapter One?
[784] Mitternacht: graded A Fetish-like character of commodity and capital. The
fetish-like character of the commodity described in chapter one of Das Kapital has to do
with treating the social relations of men as if they were relations between commodities. This
unclear, or mistaken relationship is what gives the commodity a fetish-like character. The
fetish-like character of capital on the other hand is created by man becoming subservient
to the very thing that he produces. Marx praises Van Thunen in his footnotes (77a) for
formulating a question which sums up this contradiction quite well: “How has the worker
been able to pass from being the master of capital – as its creator – to being its slave?”
Message [784] referenced by [2009fa:1130] and [2010fa:1034]. Next Message by Mitternacht is [846].
Question 756 is 559 in 2001fa, 727 in 2007fa, 761 in 2008fa, 794 in 2009fa, 863 in
2010fa, and 896 in 2011fa:
Question 756 What is the right answer to the question: “How has the worker” (and not only
the worker but mankind as a whole) “been able to pass from being the master of capital—as
its creator—to being its slave?”
[788] Papageorgio: Mankind? It is by no accident that in this question Hans is sure to
state that not only the worker but mankind as a whole has become a slave. It is not just one
man one laborer but mankind who becomes slave to capitalism. The worker indeed is slave
to capitalism, our society becomes influenced and slaved by its regulations and important
to note the capitalist himself also is a slave. As we see mankind also becomes slave to the
desire for more. More of everything, more money, land, possessions. Mankind is taken in
and subject to capitalism to a extremely bad result. War is a very severe consequence of
capitalism along with the destruction of our land we live in, the killing of the earth. As
we continue along it as if we don’t even recognize what is causing us to fall into such a
society. As workers, capitalists, humans we become more and more poor, worse off than
before. Some people if they were able to see through capitalism’s facade might actually
evade capitalism itself and be free. But as we know this is not the case at our point in the
world today.
Message [788] referenced by [790] and [832]. Next Message by Papageorgio is [799].
[790] Nstew: Slave? In response to Papageorgio’s answer [788] I don’t understand how
the capitalist is becoming a slave and by what regulations is our society becoming a slave? In
our society, a free market society, there is nothing to stop someone from starting up their own
business if they are sick of working for the “capitalist”. Although many people do become
slaves to their wants, or needs to have “things” to keep up with the Jones’s, there is nothing
stopping one from going out and becoming a producer instead a consumer. What I mean by
this is that in our society we have the choice of whether we want to produce value and wealth
or if we are only going to be a consumer and continue to make other people rich. Although
Wal-Mart is considered by some as the destructive “capitalist” who is destroying America,
Sam Walton started out by opening one store back in Arkansas in 1962 and slowly building
it into what it is today. We each have the opportunity to free ourselves from becoming a

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 315
“slave” to capital or to the capitalist by figuring out what passions and strengths we have and
then leveraging them to produce value and wealth.
Hans: If Marx’s theory is right, then this escape route is open only to a small minority. Sam Walton can “leverage”
his passions and strenghts only because tens of thousands of his employees produce value in excess of their wages.
These employees are the producers of Walton’s wealth. It is not possible that everybody becomes a capitalist,
because then nobody would create the value which enters the capitalists’ pockets as profit.
Message [790] referenced by [793]. Next Message by Nstew is [792].
[832] Hans: How did we get into this mess? Papageorgio [788] says that capitalism
is the result of the “desire for more,” not only by the capitalists but by everyone. In other
words, it is part of human nature. Marx was not quite that pessimistic. Marx’s most fundamental
critique of capitalism is that the individuals do not have control over their own social
relations. How did this control slip away from us, so that commodities make social interactions
for us and our means of production are our masters rather than our tools? If 187:1 is a
guide, Marx blames individualism and atomism for it instead of greed. We need to do away
with competition and share our resources in solidarity. This is the only way how humankind
has a chance to avert climate disaster.
Message [832] referenced by [2009fa:1137], [2009fa:1143], and [2010fa:1046]. Next Message by Hans is [851].
Question 759 is 435 in 1999SP, 530 in 2000fa, 561 in 2001fa, 603 in 2002fa, 627 in
2003fa, 761 in 2007SP, 730 in 2007fa, 764 in 2008fa, 797 in 2009fa, 866 in 2010fa, 899
in 2011fa, and 929 in 2012fa:
Question 759 In 773:1, Marx discusses an empirical phenomenon in which technical progress
“expresses” itself. Which phenomenon is that? Why does Marx speak here of an expression?
[830] Jason: Means of production. Corey in [2007fa:679] describes the phenomenon as
the means of production getting more advanced and thus increasing production while reducing
labor input. I think this is what Marx was referring too. Technical progress expresses
itself through increased production, with less labor input. Corey used a Krispy Kreme production
as an example of how one man can now do several people’s jobs. However this does
not benefit the laborer that is more productive now. It benefits the capitalist who owns the
means of production and can now lay off several employees.
Hans: The empirical phenomenon mentioned by Marx in which technical progress expresses itself is not increased
production but a higher technical composition of capital.
First Message by Jason is [85].
Question 767 is 611 in 2002fa, 635 in 2003fa, 694 in 2004fa, 641 in 2005fa, 769 in
2007SP, 738 in 2007fa, 772 in 2008fa, 805 in 2009fa, 874 in 2010fa, 907 in 2011fa, and
937 in 2012fa:
Question 767 How do competition and credit help in the process of centralization?
[841] Nstew: Competition... Competition is one of the most important components of a
capitalist society. Competition and credit working in unison are what continue the process
of “centralization”.
Competition is what drives the capitalist to provide the consumer with the best quality
product or the best price and it is best if you can combine the two. The consumer is usually
the one who wins when there is competition because when you have multiple companies

316 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
competing against each other it prevents monopolies. I know many people think Wal-Mart
has created a monopoly because the smaller stores can’t compete with their prices because
Wal-Mart keeps has their prices so low that it puts the smaller companies out of business.
Here is an example of a local company here in Utah doing the exact opposite; Regan Outdoor
Advertising owns the large majority of billboards in Utah and particularly along I-15 in the
Salt Lake Valley. Because they own most of the inventory and they know that no one else
can compete with them they charge $5500.00 for a 4 week period to purchase billboard
advertising through them. By creating 4 week periods instead of charging by the month,
which is what all the other companies do, they have managed to squeeze in 13 periods in
a year. The majority of the other outdoor advertising companies who own billboards along
I-15 in Salt Lake, which are very few in comparison, charge between $2300 - $3000 per
month. Here are 2 examples of companies who dominate their markets which have 2 totally
different outcomes for the customer. Wal-Mart provides people with great values which
most small companies can’t compete with and Regan Outdoor charges people through the
nose because they own the majority of the inventory in their market. The majority of the
time competition will provide customers with the best products for the best prices.
When the capitalist have credit it provides him access to the financial funds needed to
facilitate large scale production, which would otherwise not be available to him. This access
to financial funds provided from credit speeds up the process of production which allows
smaller companies to expand much faster than they would if they had to accumulate the
funds on their own. When you combine competition and credit it is the machine which
creates centralization.
Hans: A Marxist would probably say: Regan rips off the other capitalists due to its monopoly ownership of billboards,
and Wal-Mart rips off workers, suppliers, and the state welfare systems, eradicates many small businesses
(here we see how competition aids in centralization), and gives part of the booty to the consumers. The consumer’s
side of this bargain is described in [2005fa:482]
Next Message by Nstew is [886].
Question 779 is 623 in 2002fa, 647 in 2003fa, 706 in 2004fa, 652 in 2005fa, 780 in
2007SP, 749 in 2007fa, 784 in 2008fa, 886 in 2010fa, and 949 in 2012fa:
Question 779 Which violent means did capital use in its infancy to sweep away the bounds
imposed on its accumulation by the natural limits of the exploitable working population?
[827] Jeremy: Revolution. The violent means capital used in its infancy to sweep away
the bounds imposed on it points to many possibilities. An example from the Communist
Manifesto: “When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and
all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation,
the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is
merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its
contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself
as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps
away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have
swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally,
and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.” An example of this action
would be the French Revolution. The unrest of the many turned into a full-scale civil war

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 317
with the placement of a new government. The bounds placed upon capital could be counted
as population controls, government forms, and level of civilization that the population is
currently at. To overcome these bounds, the people rise up to gain freedom, when actually,
they come into the bondage of a different oppressor, known by the name of capital.
Hans: The quote from the Communist Manifesto had the words “sweep away” in it, but instead of talking about
capital in its infancy it talks about the end of capital.
Next Message by Jeremy is [857].
[828] Spawnblade: Revolution or Devolution? (Har har). Jeremy [779] brought up an
appropriate answer to the question of ‘violent means’ used in capitalisms infancy to sweep
away its bounds. Yet I find myself feeling a certain distaste towards the response as a whole.
I suppose the first part that doesn’t sit well is the example from the Communist Manifesto.
It’s a bit too long to quote, but essentially it refers to the stage after capitalism, the period
where capitalism fails and the people call for a revolution towards the next step. However,
this contradicts the question itself which I see as targeting progress for capitalism, not away
from it. In this respect, the French Revolution was an appropriate example of a revolution,
seeing as it was the organizing of the people for the betterment of living standards, freedoms,
and beliefs.
Natural limits as I understand them are the labor pool size, technology, means of production,
amount of capital, and laws. As noted in the first paragraph, and in Jeremy’s post, it
takes a revolution by the people to take the land/means of production/capital from the fiefs,
monarch, or whoever else is in control of them previously. Revolutions were generally the
most common, and most effective method for this. However, even after this you had another
barrier to the growth of the capitalist. This barrier is also known as skilled labor. Before
we had factories we had weavers, potters, you name it. Once mass production began, these
people picketed and fought both legally and violently against these mass producers in order
to keep their livelihood. It may not have been as bloody, nor as outwardly violent as revolutions
were, but there were lives on the line (mostly in an economic sense.) This leads me
to my final point: Not all violence is physical. As far as I can see, any kind of aggressive
conflict can be considered violent – whether physical, political, or economical.
Next Message by Spawnblade is [853].
Question 784 is 433 in 1998WI, 583 in 2001fa, 628 in 2002fa, 652 in 2003fa, 711 in
2004fa, 657 in 2005fa, 754 in 2007fa, 789 in 2008fa, 823 in 2009fa, 891 in 2010fa, and
954 in 2012fa:
Question 784 Why does the capitalist have the motive to get the same labor-time out of a
smaller number of workers? Which economic facts did Marx refer to, and which additional
economic facts go in the same direction nowadays?
[812] Ken: small vs large. Keeping capital the same, the capitalist would prefer a smaller
quantity of workers over a larger quantity of workers if he could still keep production at
the necessary level. The smaller group of workers would have to work more hours in order
to produce the same amount as the larger group; however the capitalist would prefer this.
Nowadays, by having fewer workers the capitalist can reduce cost for example training costs
and benefits. The capitalist would rather pay the wage of fewer employees even if he has

318 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
the pay extra for the long hour; overtime wage. This wage increase would cost the capitalist
less than having to train more workers and provide benefits for the additional workers.
Another disadvantage to having more workers is the constant capital will need to increase.
For example, the warehouses or the building in which the capitalist uses for production will
need to expand. Additional machinery will need to be purchased in order to gain the most
benefits from the additional workers. Overall the benefits of having fewer workers definitely
outweigh having a large amount of workers.
Hans: You didn’t distinguish those reasons which Marx already mentioned from those which arose more recently.
Message [812] referenced by [819]. Next Message by Ken is [859].
[819] Ryoung: Response to Ken. I agree with [812] that most capitalists would prefer to
have fewer workers because it equates into a bigger more lucrative bottom line for them. Ken
mentions that machinery would be one way in which the capitalist could produce more with
less workers. I believe that this is the biggest way in which this can be pulled off. Through
technology production will increase at a more productive rate with less overhead to cover.
With our technological advances this day there will be greater opportunities to produce more
with less workers. Is this the trend that the production market will follow?
Hans: The problem with this way out, according to Marx, is that machinery does not create value. If capitalists
introduce machinery, their profit rate will fall, and they have to squeeze the workers even more in order to compensate
for this. The workers with their surplus-labor have to generate profits not only for the wages they are getting,
but also for the constant capital.
Next Message by Ryoung is [820].
Question 790 is 438 in 1998WI, 462 in 1999SP, and 657 in 2003fa:
Question 790 Marx describes two mechanisms by which capital acts on both sides. Sides of
what? Which mechanisms? Can you think of a third mechanism which again has a similar
effect?
[821] Bar: graded A wages and labor mechanisms. Marx discusses how the wage market
works through two mechanisms first, through labor-power, second how supply and demand
manipulate this level. Capital works through the supply and demand of the labor market
creating a wage that lessens how much control skilled labor has over their wage. My father
is a painting contractor and I have seen how this affects his earnings and the wages of his
employees. Before the housing boom, his earnings stayed at a stable level rising slightly year
after year, probably just a nominal increase, but during the last housing boom his earnings
increased 30% in just two years and have stayed stable since. My father owns the company
so he was able during this time to buy a lot more capital, in this case he bought a lot of new
paint sprayers so that his employees all could access this capital not just a few due to costs.
The wages of my dad’s employees, as I am one and I know, have only slightly increased in
the last few years not nearly 30%. The capital decreased the wage because we complete jobs
faster, so my dad pays less in wages. This occurs because as a market’s size increases, for
example the housing market, earnings increase because of the higher demand, more people
enter the market and so does a rise in the demand for new more efficient capital to lower
wages. A third mechanism that would create another dynamic into the labor market would
be the level of labor organization. If labor can organize against capital, higher wages will be
demanded, furthermore, the capitalist will have less money to invest in new capital lowering
wages.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 319
Hans: Twice in your essay I replaced “wages” with “earnings.” Your father’s income is a different economic
category than wage income.
Message [821] referenced by [851]. Next Message by Bar is [822].
[851] Hans: Treacherous Labor Market. In 792:2/oo, Marx writes: “Capital acts on
both sides at once.” Both sides of what? Both sides of the labor market, the demand side and
the supply side. We know that capital acts on the demand side of the labor market, because
it hires the laborer. But how does it act on the supply side? Marx gives two mechanisms
which are briefly described in my [1999SP:471].
Bar [821] brings a real-life example for one of the two mechanisms: if demand for the
output goes up, the capitalist can use labor-saving equipment to produce this higher output
with fewer workers than he previously needed to supply a lower output. One might say that
by switching to this labor-saving machinery the capitalist sets laborers free, i.e., adds to the
supply of laborers.
The other mechanism mentioned by Marx is: by laying off workers the capitalist can
increase the supply of labor because those who still have a job are working harder now so
that they won’t be laid off too. You won’t find this effect with inanimate commodities. If you
replace your incandescent lightbulbs with compact fluorescent ones, the refrigerator won’t
say to himself “I better get my act together and quit wasting so much energy, otherwise I
will be thrown out too.”
I have thought of a third mechanism which is not mentioned by Marx explicitly, but which
is implicit in his formulation that the supply of labor is “to a certain extent independent of
the supply of laborers.” If the capitalist lowers wages (or, which is the same thing, fails to
raise wages with inflation), then the workers see themselves forced to work more overtime
so that they can pay their bills.
Bar says something about unions. Unions are indeed needed as a counterweight to this
unfair advantage of the capitalists. A little further down in the same long paragraph 792:2/oo
Marx says that the employed and the unemployed should organize together, in order to
prevent this competition between employed and unemployed. This was done, for instance,
in the Unemployed Councils during the Great Depression. Modern capitalists try to prevent
labor organization by hiring undocumented workers, who they hope will not fight back for
fear of deportation. The co-op miners’ strike was a big surprise to them: the workers did fight
back, and despite footdragging by the NLRB they eventually kind of won. See [2003fa:663]
about this.
Next Message by Hans is [887].
Question 800 is 472 in 1999SP, 643 in 2002fa, 726 in 2004fa, 672 in 2005fa, 801 in
2007SP, 805 in 2008fa, 838 in 2009fa, 908 in 2010fa, and 941 in 2011fa:
Question 800 What is pauperism?
What is its relationship to the relative surplus population?
Discuss contemporary forms of pauperism.
Which political actions can one expect from paupers and why?
[818] Rey: graded A A Pauper’s Way of Life. Pauperism is as Hans states, “not the
direct result of the repulsion of labor by capital, but the result of the result of this expulsion.”

320 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
As capital replaces workers in the labor force “employed turn unemployed” and as a result
these unemployed turn into Paupers, or those who are deeply entrenched in the depths of
poverty. In other words a pauper doesn’t descend to their status simply by being replaced
with capital, but because they were replaced with capital. With wages depleted from the
result of unemployment and the feeling of no other option, Paupers turn to non-traditional
or “black-market” means of production to survive. Modern day forms of paupers are the
homeless/beggars, drug dealers, prostitutes and other criminals. As Picard said in the fall
2005 archives [2005fa:1837], “Pauperism is related to the surplus population in that it is a
‘result of the existence of surplus population.’” Paupers would be nowhere to be found if
a surplus population didn’t exist. I also agree with Picard when stating, “I would expect
Paupers to not be involved in politics very much because they would be too preoccupied
with survival to engage in political actions.” If an individual is clawing and fighting to get
out of the pit of poverty they more than likely will have little interest, not to mention no
leisure time, to engage in political matters. Not only will they have little interest and time,
but also they most likely would have a lack of hope that real change is even possible. With
this in mind we can get a glimpse of how class division hinders the democratic process.
First Message by Rey is [84].
Question 801 is 473 in 1999SP, 599 in 2001fa, 644 in 2002fa, 668 in 2003fa, 727 in
2004fa, 673 in 2005fa, 802 in 2007SP, 771 in 2007fa, 806 in 2008fa, 839 in 2009fa, 909
in 2010fa, 942 in 2011fa, and 972 in 2012fa:
Question 801 What is worse: the misery of idle impoverishment or the torture of work?
[806] JPeel: graded B– absolute impoverishment at its best. Absolute impoverishment
is the act of making someone poor. Marx talks about the way a man is degraded at his job
and put so low in the barrel that there is no escape. A man putting his life and integrity
on the line every day in order to make ends meat is not a valued life. It is a world wide
problem that has to be looked at from all angles. It is occurring all over the globe and is an
issue that certainly does apply in today’s world. It is not right for a human being to suffer
so miserably that even his family is feeling the wrath of the capital. These workers and their
families are being exploited to the max. For example, when we look at workshops in third
world countries we see absolute impoverishment at its best. These workers do not know that
in reality they are working way more than they are getting paid. It is hurtful to them and
the ones around them when exploitation like this takes control. It is a helpless process for
them but they do not know any better and need any means of capital to survive. They will
continue to sacrifice their lives at the cost of a penny.
Hans: You didn’t read the question. And your implication is naive that the victims of third world sweatshops
could end their exploitation if they only knew how valuable the product of their labor is. In some Latin American
countries, union organizers are systematically killed by government-connected paramilitary forces.
Message [806] referenced by [820]. First Message by JPeel is [423].
[820] Ryoung: Child Labor a Sad Necessity. I think that Jpeel [806] brings up some
truth in his submission regarding child labor and them being exploited. It is a sad truth that
around the world there are children that are forced to work. These children not are only
working but they are working in horrible conditions, long hours, and for horrible pay. In
the readings that I have read regarding child labor I have come to feel for them as, like
Jpeel mentioned, they are being exploited. However in most of these situations they are

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 321
working out of necessity to provide for their families. The economic conditions as a whole
in these countries are so horrible that I believe there is hardly any opportunity for anyone
who resides there. It will be a long difficult process but I do believe that more opportunity
can be brought to them but it will come with sacrifice. I have also come to find out that if
the child workers were to be outlawed the economy would even fall to a worse state which
would leave them and their families worse off economically. Therefore I believe that the
best solution to this would be to create parameters for these children to work and a more fair
wage would have to be provided. Not only this but the conditions in which they work would
have to be improved. Should children have to work? Of course not! But in order for these
living conditions to improve I believe that these parameters would have to be in order.
Hans: This kind of reasoning is called a TINA argument (There Is No Alternative).
First Message by Ryoung is [36].
[831] Carterryan: Work Hard for the Money. The misery of idle impoverishment is
way worse than the torture of work. This is true socially and economically. Socially because
when you do not work you are a burden to society, you do not give anything back and you
still require substance to survive so you are taking without giving anything back. Also when
a person works they fulfill a personal satisfaction that is better than the torment of work.
The economic reason is similar to the social reason, in that when you are not working the
community loses out on the economic surplus that can be used to create a decrease in the
cost of goods.
Next Message by Carterryan is [876].
[836] Ande: This is the type of question that can be answered either way, it comes from
the way you were raised how you measure wealth and value, and how you personally take
the readings from Marx. I personally feel that idle impoverishment is much worse than the
torture of work. I have a liking for material items and do not look at work as torture but as a
form of gaining wealth, knowledge, and value. I feel that without work you will not be able
to gain wealth or money to spend in the market place to buy materials for the necessity of
living as well as buying material items. As well when one is working they are able to gain
knowledge everyday in the work place, as well as having a feeling of value for their work.
I personally get satisfaction for putting in a hard day’s work. I feel that I was raised to feel
this way. The family I was raised in always looked at hard work as being the only way to
get far in life and be successful. That is why I feel as though idle impoverishment is a much
larger torture than the torture of work. I also took a lot of what Marx has written in helping
to answer this question. After reading the chapters I feel as though Marx feels that work can
be torture at times but it is necessary in every aspect of life. It is not torture if you look at
what you gain from it. So through personal experiences and the readings of Marx, I feel the
torture of idle impoverishment is much worse than that of the torture of work.
Message [836] referenced by [838]. Next Message by Ande is [837].
[838] Aaron: torture of work? It is interesting to note in what Ande [836] says about the
torture of work and the idle impoverishment. Marx clearly believes that work is something
of a torturous task, only performed because one must, not because he wants to gain material
things or wealth. Before the time of Karl Marx, work was not always irksome. There was
a time when work was noble and honorable. In ancient cultures, only the best and brightest

322 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
were allowed to go hunt and work and build houses for the tribes and societies. Even in recent
Native American cultures this is evident. The hunters, or workers, are the most admired
group in the tribe. I wonder where society began to view work and compensation as some
type of torture? Or where Marx derived the same theory, that work is to be disdained?
Message [838] referenced by [839]. Next Message by Aaron is [849].
[839] FacistFrank: In response to Aaron’s [838], I think that Marx would have said
that actual work is not something that is tortuous, but that what capitalism has turned work
into is certainly torture, at least it was in his time. There are types of work, that require a
lot of effort but it feels great when you get done, because you get all the benefits of that
labor. Some people like my brother love to work on cars and their engines. It gives them
an immense feeling of satisfaction, or a baker who has just made a beautiful wedding cake.
I think that capitalism can make it similar to torture because you are so ripped off, when it
comes to getting the full benefits of your labor. But I also agree that idle impoverishment is
a worse fate. It’s like being stuck between a rock and a hard space, capitalist exploitation or
grinding poverty.
Next Message by FacistFrank is [865].
Question 803 is 446 in 1999SP, 617 in 2002fa, 641 in 2003fa, 700 in 2004fa, 674 in
2005fa, 804 in 2007SP, 773 in 2007fa, 808 in 2008fa, 841 in 2009fa, and 944 in 2011fa:
Question 803 The only way the worker can improve his lot in society is to increase the
productive powers of his labor. Right or wrong?
[829] Allen: worker’s lot in society. I believe that the answer to the question is wrong and
that a worker cannot increase his lot in society by increasing the productive powers of his
labor. Marx says that “the higher the productive powers of labor the greater is the pressure
of the workers on the means of employment, the more precarious therefore becomes the
condition for their existence, namely the sale of their own labor-power for the increase of
alien wealth” [798:3]. Marx basically states that if a worker works too much he will not
increase his lot in society and actually make it worse.
Hans: An increase in the productivity of labor is not always connected with more work or more intense work. But
such an increase in productivity is typically accompanied by more machinery per worker. Therefore the capitalist
has to invest more capital per worker. This will lower demand for labor and make the laborer’s situation more
precarious.
Message [829] referenced by [833] and [2008fa:1257]. Next Message by Allen is [864].
[833] FacistFrank: Re: worker’s lot in society. this question and answer [829] are
really fascinating, Allen thinks it is false, i don’t know because i have not read the chapter
yet. But perhaps i can use the limited bit of dialectic i actually learned in this class, to try
and extrapolate. I do think the correct answer, is false, but perhaps a worker can improve his
lot in a small way from increasing his labor power, anyways the worker can take the biggest
step in improving his lot by unionizing and simply seizing the means of production. He can
temporarily increase his lot by increasing labor power but it is to his long term detriment,
because he increases the power of the capitalist. Whether revenue goes to his boss or his
bosses’ boss, or the owner of his imputs, it still goes to the biggest capitalist fish in the
ocean. However this increases the chances that the workers will revolt because conditions
are getting worse as a result. so they successfully revolt, then the workers who set up a more

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 323
perfect state, will get lazy and selfish, and forgetful of the lessons of the past, and i think
this has a lot to do with Marx’s theory of Permanent revolution. The new workers in the
“utopia” will have to use the power that capital has to produce their necessities and no more,
then the rest of the time is spent reading and enlightening themselves, so they can keep the
society going at a balance to not slip back into the cycle. This whole chain of logic seems
to move in a circle, and the circle turns and purges itself and become less violent with each
violent purge. perhaps it reaches utopia or simply turns around again in a bigger circle it
is moving in., i hope this doesn’t sound like nonsense or is way off the dialectic mark. If
this is dialectic, or a more roughly missed hit, which this explanation probably is, i think it
applies to everything, from the cycles of destruction and creation that work in the principles
of self improvement, to the inner workings of a car’s engine. opposite forces diametrically
reflecting (another word i have read Marx use) and using the force and structure of the other
to support it, and enable it’s existence.
P.S. this class was fantastic, Hans do you teach any other marxian classes? Or are there
other marxian classes at the U, no pun intended.
Hans: There are other Marxist faculty at our Department: Kay Hunt, Al Campbell, Minqi Li. Minqi Li just
published an interesting article about China and Global Warming in Monthly Review, see
http://www.monthlyreview.org/080401li.php
Just today someone on the marxism mailing list commented about Minqi:
When it comes to fusing an understanding of the ecological limits to global accumulation with
an analysis of the complementarities and conflicts between US imperialism on the decline
and PRC capitalism on the rise, Minqi Li is probably the most astute commentator out there.
Publishing really good stuff like this, I wonder how long he will be able to occupy his perch
in bourgeois academia though.
As far as I can tell, Minqi’s position is solid.
Next Message by FacistFrank is [839].
Question 805 is 475 in 1999SP, 601 in 2001fa, 729 in 2004fa, 806 in 2007SP, 775 in
2007fa, 810 in 2008fa, 913 in 2010fa, and 946 in 2011fa:
Question 805 Define and discuss the law of the absolute impoverishment of the working
class. Does it apply today?
[842] Samantha: Sweatshops and misery. Marx states, “[A]s capital accumulates, the
situation of the worker, be his payment high or low, must grow worse.” This is the basic idea
of absolute impoverishment, that as the rich grow richer they must get their wealth from
somewhere and that is from the poor proletariat. An example of this is sweatshop labor. The
example Mopreme gives in [2005fa:605] about Nike is still valid today, the very poorest are
not getting any richer, in fact they are getting poorer because with rising prices they are still
getting paid the same.
The other portion of this theory deals with the absolute portion of impoverishment, “All
methods for raising the social productive powers of labor are put into effect at the expense
of the worker; ... they distort the worker into a fragment of a man, they degrade him to the
level of an appendage of a machine, they destroy actual content of his labor by turning it
a torment.” [775:1/o] This is the absolute portion. Because of the lack of any benefit from
the labor to the worker, people are miserable, their impoverishment is complete, not only

324 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
are they physically poor but they are poor in spirit as well, this is what Marx means and it
happens all around us with today with the general exploitation of labor.
Hans: But in strictly material terms here in the USA, the working class has not been impoverished enough to call
it “immiseration.” True, the steady advances in the living standards have slowed down or ceased, minimum wages
have not kept up with inflation, there is a health care crisis, workers are losing pensions, etc., but “immiseration”
means third world conditions, or perhaps the situation of the Katrina victims.
Next Message by Samantha is [843].
Question 807 is 383 in 1997WI, 648 in 2002fa, 672 in 2003fa, 731 in 2004fa, 678 in
2005fa, 808 in 2007SP, 777 in 2007fa, 812 in 2008fa, 845 in 2009fa, 915 in 2010fa, and
948 in 2011fa:
Question 807 “The poor and idle are a necessary consequence of the rich and active.”
Right or wrong?
[835] Scott: Lazy capitalist. A capitalist generates his wealth through the exploitation
of his laborers and not through his own work. Therefore to say that the poor are idle is
wrong. Skippy put it right, [1997WI:400] “if the poor were idle, the rich people of this
world wouldn’t be rich.” Skippy goes on to say the quote should read as follows, “The poor
and active are the necessary consequence of the rich and idle.” It is the worker who creates
the use value so the capitalist can use it for his profit.
Hans: Your last sentence seems to imply that the capitalist makes profits by marketing the use-values generated by
the workers. I.e., workers are only responsible for the use-value, and the capitalists are responsible for turning this
use-value into money. Marx does not give the capitalist so much credit. According to Marx’s theory, the worker
not only creates use-value but also value, that which underlies the sales price. I.e., profits are created in production,
not in circulation.
Next Message by Scott is [855].
Question 810 is 386 in 1997WI, 456 in 1998WI, 480 in 1999SP, 734 in 2004fa, 681 in
2005fa, 780 in 2007fa, 815 in 2008fa, 848 in 2009fa, 918 in 2010fa, and 951 in 2011fa:
Question 810 What is the General Law of Capitalist Accumulation?
[814] Bar: graded A capital accumulation and exploitation. The most interesting idea
regarding the theory of capital accumulation is as stated in annotations, “. . . The system of
capital accumulation has managed to integrate the labor-market into its own logic instead of
allowing it to disturb or constrain capital accumulation from the outside.” This argument is
key in understanding how capitalism shapes the environment unnaturally through constraints
on the labor market. The laborers work with the capital to produce a good, the laborers are
not disturbing the market and expanding it as they wish, because they do not hold the means
of production. The outside force of trade also influences this because sometimes to expand
capital you have to expand trade knocking down impediments like unions and unnecessary
labor to change laws or social constructs for the furthering of capital. As capital increases
so does one lot of money transform into larger forms of money; M-C-M1. This equation
show how important money is to the growth of capital in a capital economy. In the end,
capitalists exploit the workers, because it increases the money of the capitalist, by taking the
capital and labor, which is just time delayed labor, the capitalist squeezes out value from the
workers by using more, and more efficient capital.

Message [814] referenced by [2009fa:1210]. Next Message by Bar is [821].
U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 325
Term Paper 811 is 786 in 2007fa, 816 in 2008fa, 849 in 2009fa, 920 in 2010fa, 953 in
2011fa, and 983 in 2012fa:
Term Paper 811 Term Paper on the Externalities of Capitalism, i.e., on the positive and
negative local and global impacts of production in the name of profits.
[769] Alex: graded A Resources and Capitalism. When considering the positive and
negative externalities of Capitalism you must realize that the effects are far reaching over
both time and policy. Positive and negative externalities must be put into a concept and
considered by every individual, because how you weigh the effects will probably determine
your political views and governmental participation.
Marx starts chapter Twenty-Five by discussing the impasse that will occur in capitalism.
That is he questions “sooner or later, the accumulation of capital must run into the limitation
of population growth.” This statement comes to reflect the capitalist as a person that will
consume resources until they are no longer available. This first recognition of capital consumption
of resources is vital in understanding a key negative externality, that being limited
growth. I think time has shown that resources have been much more abundant than what
could be consumed in a matter of years or decades. However, resources are not infinite
and they have definite parameters as to what they can accommodate. So who determines
how best to use resources? The capitalist will use all resources to facilitate growth without
thought of others. As Marx brings up in earlier chapters, the capitalist will work all employees
at unreasonable rates to insure the machines are always running. This problem is
discussed further in the problem known as the “tragedy of the commons.”
Marx also identifies the different aspects of capital as being more than just one process.
He divides capital into both production and living capital, or labor power. The control of
labor power by the capitalist has been discussed at length in previous chapters, but it is
important to understand that this is a manipulation and exploitation of the worker by the
capitalist. The laborer is unable to sell their power, in the form of commodities, so they are
forced to work for the capitalist. This is another negative externality of capitalism.
But what of the composition of the capital? When the commodity does not necessarily
reflect the generation of the commodity it must be looked at with special parameters. At the
end of the scenario growth in capital is merely a reflection of its variable makeup, most
notably labor-power. These variables again reflect the control by the capitalist, and his
manipulation of the market. The growth is controlled by the capitalist so it constantly plays
into his favor as it needs to.
As capital accumulates it outgrows the ability to produce the good. This means that
growth will outpace labor. Does this possibly mean a wage increase for the laborer? It could,
depending on the capitalist and resources available. This is certainly a positive externality
of capitalism. That being said, the laborer does not alter how the capitalist functions. In fact
the opposite occurs, this process gives the capitalist increased control over the market.
The growth process can continue on and on until resources limit growth. However, the
valorization process is an important feature of this discussion. The most important factor in

326 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
all of these scenarios is simply that the worker is becoming more and more enslaved to the
capitalist. As the growth occurs and money changes hands, the laborer is not involved or
compensated justly but becomes unable to distinguish the different faces of the capitalist.
Marx also discusses the plight of the proletariat. The proletariat is simply the wage laborer.
But what is the worth of the laborer to the capitalist. When the laborers use has run
its course the laborer is left to himself. The dependence of the laborer on the capitalist is
a myth, the laborer is actually dependent on his own product. Marx does not buy into the
growth factors increasing wages, he believes that it is just a nicer chain binding the worker.
Marx goes onto describe the process by which the laborer has any worth. It is only by
producing profits that the laborer has any worth. If the labor-power does not produce profits
then it is no longer valuable. This is a seemingly simple statement but the ramifications are
vast and have many underlying tones concerning social structure, and the freedom of the
capitalist to invest as they see fit.
Marx describes the growth as a social factor as well. It is not simply the capital growing
but has more effects on the market itself. If capital contract wages shrink, as capital expands
wages rise. The employment base is dependent on the movement of capital. The lifestyle of
the worker is dependent on the capital.
Composition of capital is more complex than what Marx originally described and he goes
into depth about the role of technology in capitalism. This is certainly a positive externality
of capital. The capital pushes forth progress in the technical arena. However, this new
variable also brings the variable in composition to a more complex level, and one could
make the argument that is also continues the enslavement of the capitalist. This higher
technology can make the laborer less valuable.
Marx also takes a more complex look at the factors that make up capital. These smaller
units are all part of a larger unit and are retracted and compulsed. The concentration of
capital is limited by the effects of the market. Competition among smaller capitals are fierce
and can be influenced by the number of players in the equation. These smaller capitals can
take control of certain productions that have not been controlled by larger markets.
Capital also by its nature creates the reserve army. This reserve army is controlled and
exploited by the capital. This army can be used discarded as the capital sees fit. Those in the
army are forced to dependence on the capital.
There exists in capital the very important links between the variables of capital the laborer
and wages paid. This link is demonstrated by the capital processes and growth. This control
can lead to an inferior labor power that is set in motion by the capital. Marx does concede
that wages are controlled somewhat by the labor according to population. He admits that
population flows can create a change in capital according to wages. This surplus population
and the laborer are exploited by the capitalist, this means that someone who has only lived
half a life, has already used their abilities on behalf of the labor.
The flows of capital, social wealth and function along with the proletariat determine the
reserve army. The constant growing army is defeated in life and health and is thus left to
poverty.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 327
These functions have a widespread effect on the economy. Resources of the laborer,
etc, can be used up. These externalities discussed are essential for understanding capital.
Though the reader is always left to their own conclusions, the judgements made from Marx
will determine much about the who the reader is and how they will participate in political
life.
First Message by Alex is [139].
Question 888 is 0 in 2005fa, 0 in 2007SP, 888 in 2007fa, 888 in 2008fa, 888 in 2009fa,
888 in 2010fa, 888 in 2011fa, and 888 in 2012fa:
Question 888 Free Discussion
[3] Hans: Diet of Prejudice and Bias. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?st
Europe’s Philosophy of Failure
By Stefan Theil
January/February 2008
In France and Germany, students are being forced to undergo a dangerous indoctrination.
Taught that economic principles such as capitalism, free markets, and entrepreneurship are
savage, unhealthy, and immoral, these children are raised on a diet of prejudice and bias.
Rooting it out may determine whether Europe’s economies prosper or continue to be left
behind.
Millions of children are being raised on prejudice and disinformation. Educated in schools
that teach a skewed ideology, they are exposed to a dogma that runs counter to core beliefs
shared by many other Western countries. They study from textbooks filled with a doctrine of
dissent, which they learn to recite as they prepare to attend many of the better universities in
the world. Extracting these children from the jaws of bias could mean the difference between
world prosperity and menacing global rifts. And doing so will not be easy. But not because
these children are found in the madrasas of Pakistan or the state-controlled schools of Saudi
Arabia. They are not. Rather, they live in two of the world’s great democracies–France and
Germany.
What a country teaches its young people reflects its bedrock national beliefs. Schools
hand down a society’s historical narrative to the next generation. There has been a great deal
of debate over the ways in which this historical ideology is passed on–over Japanese textbooks
that downplay the Nanjing Massacre, Palestinian textbooks that feature maps without
Israel, and new Russian guidelines that require teachers to portray Stalinism more favorably.
Yet there has been almost no analysis of how countries teach economics, even though the
subject is equally crucial in shaping the collective identity that drives foreign and domestic
policies.
Just as schools teach a historical narrative, they also pass on “truths” about capitalism,
the welfare state, and other economic principles that a society considers self-evident. In
both France and Germany, for instance, schools have helped ingrain a serious aversion to
capitalism. In one 2005 poll, just 36 percent of French citizens said they supported the
free-enterprise system, the only one of 22 countries polled that showed minority support for

328 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
this cornerstone of global commerce. In Germany, meanwhile, support for socialist ideals is
running at all-time highs–47 percent in 2007 versus 36 percent in 1991.
It’s tempting to dismiss these attitudes as being little more than punch lines to cocktail
party jokes. But their impact is sadly and seriously self-destructive. In Germany, unemployment
is finally falling after years at Depression-era levels, thanks in no small part to welfare
reforms that in 2005 pressured Germans on the public dole to take up jobs. Yet there is
near consensus among Germans that, despite this happy outcome, tinkering with the welfare
state went far beyond what is permissible. Chancellor Angela Merkel, once heralded as
Germany’s own Margaret Thatcher, has all but abandoned her plans to continue free-market
reforms. She has instead imposed a new “rich people tax,” has tightened labor-market rules,
and has promised renewed efforts to “regulate” globalization. Meanwhile, two in three Germans
say they support at least some of the voodoo-economic, roll-back-the-reforms platform
of a noisy new antiglobalization political party called Die Linke (The Left), founded by former
East German communists and Western left-wing populists.
Message [3] referenced by [4] and [13]. Next Message by Hans is [5].
[4] Litsyemir: It’s the same story here. I lived for two years in Moscow and other
cities of Russia as a missionary for the LDS Church. I have seen firsthand the effects of a
powerful indoctrination as discussed in [3] Diet of Prejudice and Bias. Such indoctrination
binds people and makes them slaves to dogmatic beliefs. It shuts down the ability of a person
to think freely and to act freely by limiting their point of view to a narrow window that only
shows part of the whole picture.
However, I also believe that such indoctrination has taken place and continues to take
place here in America. Call me a cynic, but are we that much better than the Germans or
the French who teach anti-capitalist beliefs to schoolchildren? I remember being young,
but also knowing that the communists of the USSR and East Germany were the enemy, the
embodiment of governmental and economic evils. Socialism, I remember being taught, was
the antithesis of Capitalism - the two had no common ground and could not coexist.
Maybe I just remember incorrectly. Or maybe as I’ve grown and matured I’ve connected
things I’ve heard and read to what I was taught in my youth. Regardless, I feel that Americans
are just as guilty, if not more so, of indoctrinating our children. Capitalism in America
has become Consumption. If anything we teach our children that the accumulation of an
“immense heap of commodities”, as Marx put it, at any cost of debt or work or servitude to
those commodities is “the American way of life.” And more often than not, a commodity is
acquired to be used once or barely glanced at and then tossed aside, never to be used again.
I’m as guilty as the next person. Sometimes I get caught up in the trappings of our
consumer driven world. But what I hope I can do is teach my children to look at the world
through open eyes - to see that everything in this world isn’t just black and white, but by
looking at the whole picture, good and usefulness can be seen in anything, and that true
wisdom and knowledge only comes by being able to make their own choices and have their
own experiences.
Message [4] referenced by [13]. Next Message by Litsyemir is [6].
[8] Hans: Education - Live Long and Prosper. Someone from last Semester sent in
the following message, which is a response to [2007fa:601]. This person was no longer

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 329
subscribed, so the message was rejected. (But participants from earlier classes are invited to
re-subscribe as observers if they’d like). Since my [5] just mentioned education as wealth
which one cannot buy or sell, I thought this was topical, and I am forwarding his message to
the class.
I think a major benefit of education for personal economic potential is that education prepares
people to make more sophisticated comparisons and analysis of the payoff of different
types of work and opportunities.
For example, I’ve recently had two jobs: one based in an office using a computer and the
other a labor job in a distribution center. Both jobs had the exact same hours and pay. The
major difference between these two jobs was that the office job had frequent downtime and
constant access to high speed Internet, while the distribution center job had no downtime,
no access to the Internet and was physically exhausting. At the office job, I was able to not
only get my work done, but also check my e-mail, read the news, check my online bank
account, plan my afternoon, and still have energy at the end of the day to go to night classes.
The labor job in contrast kept me less organized, less informed, and more tired, effectively
shortening the amount of free time I had once I was off work. So while both jobs had the
same hours and same pay, the labor job included a significantly higher opportunity cost.
While the inequalities between these two jobs were simple for me quantify in my own
mind, my less educated friends who also worked at the distribution center shrugged it off
declaring “a jobs a job”. I think education is important because it can empower people to
more actively quantify the cost and benefits of various opportunities. Laborers in particular
really ought to do this. Because the highly educated business owners constantly calculate
how they can increase output while decreasing cost. Often decreasing the cost for the business
increases the cost for the laborer. And that is probably difficult to analyze if you don’t
have a strong educational background.
Next Message by Hans is [9].
[10] Chris: Live Long and Prosper? The United States has a very large middle class.
From a young age I was taught its societal basics: Go to school, Get good grades, Go to
college, Get a good job, Have a family, and then Retire with monetary wealth. I am willing
to bet that these underlying Western Values are instilled in most of us. Therefore, by doing
these steps it would appear that we would all live long and prosper. It would also appear
that by doing all these steps our society would all have the same “end” vision of happiness
and prosperity. What I have noticed, is that we do not all have the same ideals and instead a
sense of individuality that cannot be taught from a young age.
Who classifies what living “long” is? For one person, longevity could be determined by
climbing Mount Everest in their lifetime. If they do this by age 35, then this person has lived
their own “long” life. For another person, it could be living those societal basics that most
of the middle class in the United States would like to see achieved. I would also assume that
prosperity could be defined on an individual basis as well.
If a society were to implement laws governing each person’s longevity and prosperity we
would see a backlash. Even if the society were to place these laws on day one of a person’s

330 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
life, that person’s individual goal to live long and prosper would be skewed enough to try
and fight the governing society.
Next Message by Chris is [17].
[38] Chris: wine study and price manipulation. I was recently listening to the radio on
my way home from school and I could not help but be reminded of the sad state of culture
in which we live. On the radio, the two dj’s were talking about a wine study conducted by
scientists from the California Institute of Technology and Standford University. In the study,
a group of volunteers sampled glasses of wine and told the scientists which one had the best
taste. The catch was that the wine enthusiasts were given the prices of the wines before
they drank them. The study scientists manipulated the prices and needless to say, the wines
that were given a higher price received better ratings and vice versa. All of the volunteers
were hooked up to brain monitoring devices and the research showed that brain activity was
stimulated more when they saw a higher price tag on the wine.
Here is a link to the actual study:
http://www.physorg.com/news119531708.html
I am posting this because I find it rather sad that people are so motivated by a price tag
and material possessions. Also, it ties in directly with our discussions in class because the
volunteers placed more value on the wines that they thought were expensive. I find it even
harder to fathom because this study was researching brain wave activity. This would insulate
to me that the thought process of the volunteers was impossible to control (subconscious
affect) and that they have been ingrained of the value of pricing by the society in which they
live. When will this society stop placing so much “value” on material possessions and start
placing it on the stimulation of the human soul?
Next Message by Chris is [91].
[39] Hans: Do The World’s Poor Countries Finance the Rich Ones?
http://www.populareconomics.org/
Do The World’s Poor Countries Finance the Rich Ones?
By Amit Basole
Center for Popular Economics Staff Economist
January 16, 2008
Global Charity
In the year 2000, the richest 10 per cent of the world’s population held 85 percent of its
total income and wealth. The bottom half owned a mere 1 percent. Such glaring global
asymmetries have long justified redistribution of wealth from the “Global North” to the
“Global South” in the form of development aid and loans. So much so, that the stock image
of a developing country that springs to mind (particularly in sub-Saharan Africa) is that of
a heavily indebted economy which continually borrows simply to repay its old loans and
receives food and other forms of aid to feed and clothe its “naked and hungry masses.”
Persistent poverty is often blamed on inadequate aid, and rich countries are periodically
exhorted to donate more generously. This form of global charity is visible to all. But there is

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 331
another flow of wealth across national borders, greater in magnitude and more clandestine.
This is the flow from poor countries to the rich. Yes, the world’s poorest countries are today
financing the richest. Far from being heavily indebted, many developing countries are net
creditors vis-a-vis the rest of the world. How is this possible?
Who is financing whom?
Recent analysis of flows of income and wealth across national borders reveals a startling
and different story than that of global charity towards the South. Economists have found that
more money flows out of developing countries in the form of interest payments, profits of
foreign corporations, and clandestine investments in financial markets of the rich countries
than flows into them as loans, aid, and foreign direct investment. According to a recent
United Nation’s report, in 1995 the net inflow of money into developing countries was $40
billion, but by 2006 this had reversed to a net outflow of $657 billion! The global financial
system is sucking wealth out of developing countries, making them poorer in the process.
Sub-Saharan Africa in particular is associated with highly indebted poor countries. Indeed,
in 1996 the combined external debt of 25 countries of sub-Saharan Africa, owed to rich
countries and to institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, stood at $178 billion–a
large sum indeed. But even more significantly, the flow of wealth out of these same countries
over 26 years (1970-1996) equaled more than $193 billion. To make matters worse, much
of this wealth flowing out of poor countries ends up in the US economy, which absorbs twothirds
of world savings. The ecologically-damaging consumption boom in the world’s rich
countries is financed by its poor countries where consumption is a matter of survival. The
insanity of this situation puts a question mark on the entire logic of the international financial
system.
How does this happen?
But wait a minute. We might wonder, aren’t developing countries poor by definition?
How then do they have resources to transfer to rich countries? We must remember here that
although the majority of the population in a developing country is indeed poor, most countries
have a small elite class that owns a disproportionate share of its income and wealth.
In other words, the poor are poor precisely because the rich are rich. Further, a government
may be highly indebted but what about its private citizens, in particular the rich ones?
Several African leaders have amassed personal fortunes even as the governments they head
have incurred large debts. At least in part these extraordinary assets are held abroad in rich
countries. The problem is that while public debts are scrupulously recorded, many private
assets are just as scrupulously concealed. To take just one famous example, the Swiss bank
accounts of the family of General Sani Abacha, who ruled Nigeria for five years, reportedly
contain as much as $2 billion.
This phenomenon is also known as “capital flight.” There are several avenues by which
money flows from the poor countries to the rich. Repayment of earlier debt and accumulation
of foreign exchange reserves with Central Banks in developing countries are two big ones.
Since reserves often take the form of US treasury bills, reserve accumulation essentially
means lending scarce capital to the US, a classic case of the poor lending to the rich. But
there is yet a third, more hidden, avenue as well. This is trade mis-invoicing: under-reporting

332 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
exports and over-reporting imports. Exporters in a country may understate the value of their
export revenues, so that they can retain abroad the difference between their true value and
their declared value, while importers may over-state the value of their imports to obtain extra
foreign exchange, which can then be transferred abroad.
What can be done?
Should we simply chalk this up as a typical case of Third World mismanagement and corruption,
a problem of “failed states,” a lack of democratic accountability and transparency? It
is all that, but that is not the whole story. Rich country governments and international lending
institutions are often complicit in maintaining corrupt rulers and in transferring their assets
abroad. The Financial Times remarks in an editorial on the freezing of General Abacha’s
bank accounts, “Financial institutions that knowingly channeled the funds have much to answer
for, acting not so much as bankers but as bagmen, complicit in the corruption that has
crippled Nigeria.”
If development aid is used to amass private fortunes while external creditors look the other
way, why should a developing country’s poor citizens be forced to pay the price of painful
“reforms” such as cutbacks in government spending on essential services, when most of that
aid has not benefited them at all in the first place? Rather citizens of developing countries
and their governments could tell their foreign creditors that old debt will only be treated as
legitimate if the creditors can provide evidence for how the money was used for genuine
development goals. This shifts the burden of proof onto the lenders. Needless to say, such a
proposal would be extremely unpopular with rich country governments as well as with the
IMF and the World Bank.
In addition to “bottom-up” approaches to development, such as strengthening government
accountability and democracy from below in developing countries, there is a role for us here
in the developed world to play: we can do our bit by raising awareness about capital flight
and odious debt, and holding our own governments accountable for who they lend or give
aid to and how that money is spent.
Sources: 1. Isabel Ortiz (2007) Putting Financing for Development in Perspective: The
South Finances the North, IDEAS Network
http://www.ideaswebsite.org/news/nov2007/Putting Financing.pdf
2. World Economic Situation and Prospects, 2007- United Nation Development Policy
and Analysis Division
http://www.un.org/esa/policy/wess/wesp.html
3. James Boyce and Leone Ndikumana (2000) Is Africa a Net Creditor? New Estimates
of Capital Flight from Severely Indebted Sub-Saharan African Countries, 1970-1996.
http://www.umass.edu/economics/publications/economics2000 01.pdf
Message [39] referenced by [43] and [50]. Next Message by Hans is [42].
[43] Matt: Do The World’s Poor Countries Finance the Rich Ones? Rich Countries
Vs. Poor Countries

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 333
As Amit Basole states in his paper [39], 10 percent of the world’s population held 85
percent of the total income and wealth. While the bottom half owned a mere 1 percent.
With such staggering numbers one would wonder why these percentages are so far apart.
Amit states it’s partially because of wealth transfers, mismanagement and corruption. This
is all true, but there are a few other key factors that stem from hundreds of years ago when
people began to exchange goods and services, which then led to capitalism. This is one of
the leading factors of why there is such a high discrepancy between the wealthy vs. the poor
countries in today’s world economy.
Our world is full of capitalists, which is based on a principle of individual rights. I believe
this laissez-faire attitude has hurt us more then has helped us as a people. Why should there
be such drastic differences between rich and poor countries? Why aren’t we all stepping
up to help each other? Why do we have to wear nicer clothes and drive nicer cars then our
neighbors? It all stems down to capitalistic thinking in which we worrying about ourselves
instead of each other.
Amit also states that the global financial system is sucking wealth out of developing
countries. This is true and we as Americans are all guilty of it. We and other countries have
been outsourcing the production of our goods and services to poorer countries for years now.
We take advantage of them by paying extremely low wage rates. We don’t care that they live
in one room shacks with a family of five. As long as we have our nice houses and cars that’s
all we care about. These low wage workers allow us to buy goods and services for far less
than if it were produced here locally where a higher wage would be paid. We continue to
take advantage of everything or person that will allow us to. This is why there are people
living in impoverished conditions. This is why 10 percent of the world’s population held 85
percent of the total income. And this is why we need to change. We are all human beings
and we need to treat each other with a little more respect and dignity.
Below I have listed the 5 wealthiest and the 5 poorest countries ranked by GDP.
Richest: 1) Luxembourg 102284 GDP per capita, 2) Norway 79154, 3) Qatar, 4) Iceland,
5) Ireland 58883. Poorest: 1) Burundi 127, 2) Democratic Republic of the Congo 161, 3)
Liberia 195, 4) Guinea-Bissau, 204 5) Ethiopia 206
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita
Message [43] referenced by [44] and [65]. Next Message by Matt is [59].
[44] Hans: I love the sentiments Matt expresses in [43], yet I have to raise my schoolmasterly
finger and complain about Matt’s concluding sentence what we should “treat each
other with a little more respect and dignity.” Such an individualist response cannot be effective
because the problem is one of social structure and not just the behavior of a few bad
apples.
Just earlier in the same paragraph, Matt had indeed identified an important defect of the
social structure. I am taking here the liberty to elaborate a little, but as I read Matt’s essay,
he is arguing that even if market forces allow us to pay extremely low wages we should not
do this because the workers are human beings who have the right for a life in dignity. This
is a critique of the way production is structured. Labor costs should never be called costs or

334 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
treated as costs. The incomes of the workers should be considered a benefit of production,
not a cost that has to be minimized.
What would an economy look like in which the incomes of the laborers are not treated
as a cost item? For this, the workers themselves must collectively be the bosses. This is
an important requirement, but it is not enough. Many worker-owned firms have over time
become just like any other capitalist firm because they cannot compete otherwise. Money
has to be eliminated as the goal of production. Right now everybody is talking about the
coming recession due to the subprime mortgage crisis, but the only policies we are allowed
to think about are those which preserve the structures which got us into this mess. How
about raising the minimum wage to $20 an hour, and nationalizing failing banks instead of
bailing them out? An investment boom in renewable energy and mass transportation could
give us enough jobs and exports. We need rationally planned production of use-values that
make sense, instead of the blind pursuit of private profits.
Message [44] referenced by [65]. Next Message by Hans is [62].
[48] Gerund: The following was very recently circulated on another email list I am part
of; my own thoughts are at the end:
ON INDIVIDUALISM
The tendency towards individualism in the Red Army Party organization manifests itself
as follows:
1. Retaliation. Some comrades, after being criticized inside the Party by a soldier comrade,
look for opportunities to retaliate outside the Party, and one way is to beat or abuse the
comrade in question. They also seek to retaliate within the Party. “You have criticized me at
this meeting, so I’ll find some way to pay you back at the next.” Such retaliation arises from
purely personal considerations, to the neglect of the interests of the class and of the Party as
a whole. Its target is not the enemy class, but individuals in our own ranks. It is a corrosive
which weakens the organization and its fighting capacity.
2. “Small group” mentality. Some comrades consider only the interests of their own
small group and ignore the general interest. Although on the surface this does not seem to
be the pursuit of personal interests, in reality it exemplifies the narrowest individualism and
has a strong corrosive and centrifugal effect. “Small group” mentality used to be rife in the
Red Army, and although there has been some improvement as a result of criticism, there are
still survivals and further effort is needed to overcome it.
3. The “employee” mentality. Some comrades do not understand that the Party and the
Red Army, of which they are members, are both instruments for carrying out the tasks of
the revolution. They do not realize that they themselves are makers of the revolution, but
think that their responsibility is merely to their individual superiors and not to the revolution.
This passive mentality of an “employee” of the revolution is also a manifestation of
individualism. It explains why there are not very many activists who work unconditionally
for the revolution. Unless it is eliminated, the number of activists will not grow and the
heavy burden of the revolution will remain on the shoulders of a small number of people,
much to the detriment of the struggle.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 335
4. Pleasure-seeking. In the Red Army there are also quite a few people whose individualism
finds expression in pleasure-seeking. They always hope that their unit will march into
big cities. They want to go there not to work but to enjoy themselves. The last thing they
want is to work in the Red areas where life is hard.
5. Passivity. Some comrades become passive and stop working whenever anything goes
against their wishes. This is mainly due to lack of education, though sometimes it is also
due to the leadership’s improper conduct of affairs, assignment of work or enforcement of
discipline.
6. The desire to leave the army. The number of people who ask for transfers from the
Red Army to local work is on the increase. The reason for this does not lie entirely with the
individuals but also with: (1) the material hardships of life in the Red Army, (2) exhaustion
after long struggle, and (3) the leadership’s improper conduct of affairs, assignment of work
or enforcement of discipline.
The method of correction is primarily to strengthen education so as to rectify individualism
ideologically. Next, it is to conduct affairs, make assignments and enforce discipline
in a proper way. In addition, ways must be found to improve the material life of the Red
Army, and every available opportunity must be utilized for rest and rehabilitation in order
to improve material conditions. In our educational work we must explain that in its social
origin individualism is a reflection within the Party of petty-bourgeois and bourgeois ideas.
I think that the greatest difficulty is in increasing understanding. For any real shift away
from capitalism, we need to overcome individualism and develop social-consciousness. How
this understanding can come about on a wide level, I really have no idea. I think it needs to
start with a realization that of ourselves we are nothing. Not one of us has any meaningful
identity in isolation from those around us. Every one is a son or daughter, mother, brother,
sister, boss, employee, student, professor, etc., but all of these identities are identified and
attained through social relations.
Hans: It would have been useful to say that the author of your long quote is Mao Zedong. See
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1 5.htm
Next Message by Gerund is [316].
[49] Dyoung: Minimum Idea. I really liked Gerund comments on how “income of
workers should be considered a benefit of production, not a cost that has to be minimized.”
I think this would also make a big difference in the way that individuals are treated in the
economy and the social relationships would change and become a lot more like what Matt
was talking when he thought people should be treated with more respect and dignity. I do
think it is unfair and not right that in the capitalist environment people can put a minimum
wage for certain jobs. It makes it impossible to survive in society being paid a minimum
wage, you can’t afford to live. Gerund makes a good point about “small group mentality.”
I think a lot of small businesses fall into this category because they are trying to build up
their business and I think greed gets involved and then minimum wages are considered for
pay and not a wage that is suitable for the individual employee. I feel that every employee
should be paid according to performance. Business owners need to rethink their business
plans and make sure that the employees are happy because if the employees are happy and
enjoy coming to work their productivity will increase. I think that the question comes back

336 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
to the individual “whether the opportunity cost of the job is worth the wage being offered.”
I think that everyone needs to have a certain wage they feel they are worth and search until
they find the job that best fits and gets the closest to that wage. I have found in my life that
this works really well for me and if a job opportunity comes available, I first look at how
much the company is willing to pay for me to work there and what my potential is and if
it doesn’t at least meet my minimum work wage I don’t even consider the offer and I let it
go because I feel that my time is worth a certain price and my work will help benefit the
production of the company and I don’t think it is fair to minimize my wage. So in the end
does the individual feel that it is worth his time to go to work?
Next Message by Dyoung is [173].
[50] Carterryan: Do The World’s Poor Countries Finance the Rich Ones? In response
to [39]: The wealth of the world comes mainly from the economic power the United States of
America. That is why we can afford to give financial aid to the third world poverty nations of
Africa and others. The problem is that we do exploit all their natural resoures and their labor
within for our own benefit. That is why we have the resources to give money to Africa. Yes,
their GNP surpasses their debt, but that is more private gain for individuals than government.
I think if we let Africa be independent from us that they will have a more beneficial economy
for themselves and it would help them be more independent from foreign support.
Next Message by Carterryan is [104].
[51] Andy: Do The World’s Poor Countries Finance the Rich Ones? It’s no big surprise
that the richest nations would try to gain more money through the interest of their small loans
to developing countries. However at the same time it’s sad that the richest nations are not
really trying to help the poor nations grow but instead they are exploiting them. Some people
might argue that through the lending to developing nations the rich are helping that nation
grow but the fact of the matter is they are putting the developing nations into a greater debt.
Message [51] referenced by [54] and [55]. Next Message by Andy is [181].
[52] Ryoung: Is child labor necessary? Much discussion has been made the past 10 or
so years regarding child labor laws, or the lack thereof, in developing countries. Besides this
there has also been much to read about for those corporations in the United States that use
this child labor to produce their products. Many believe that this labor should completely be
outlawed across the world. In most situations these children workers are working in horrible
conditions with little nutrition and long hours. Not to mention the filth that they are working
in, and the incredibly low wages they receive. I have seen documentaries in previous classes
that I have taken, and it is a sad thing to see the life these kids live. I believe that everyone
in life deserves a chance to chase their dreams and these kids have no opportunity to do
so. However I do believe that instead of outlawing/doing away with these operations across
the world I believe that they need to be regulative on a world standard if these countries
want an opportunity to continue to develop. At first glance such a suggestion seems cruel
and off base but while further pondering and studying the situations that these countries
find themselves in I have found out that the majority of these kids have no other choice
but to work to help provide for their families. There is no doubt that these countries are in
horrible economic situations. Although it would be nice to be able to immediately turn the
situation around so that they flourished economically the reality is that it is going to be a
long process to turn things around. Many of these countries heavily rely on these “cheap
child labor” operations for economic stability, and many families rely on these operations

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 337
for their income. To say the least there are not many other opportunities for sustainability,
and this is why I believe that the child labor should be regulated instead of done away with.
I believe that there should be a wage floor set for these workers and I also believe that there
should be a maximum amount of labor for these children to be able to work, depending on
their age. Whether or not this idea is amenable I do believe that it is a start to help these
countries to develop and to help them with better opportunities.
Message [52] referenced by [53]. Next Message by Ryoung is [235].
[53] Aaron: Child Labor Laws? I have a few comments about what Ryoung said in
[52]. I basically agree with what what said here. Child labor should not be outlawed in
the countries that use it. If a country if using child labor to produce goods, they obviously
need it to feed their economy. If it is cold turkey outlawed I believe those certain economies
would collapse. I would guesstimate that the child labor accounts for a large part part of the
economy. In agreement with [52], the laws should be regulated and become more strict with
the passing of a predetermined lot of years. For Example, at x age, you can work y hours,
but in 2 years, x+2 years can work y-2 hours per week, and so on for the next 10 years until
the child labor has been extracted from the society. On a moral level, I really don’t think that
child labor is a good thing, but on the other hand, I know that some economies have been
built on it, and it cannot be taken away cold turkey.
Next Message by Aaron is [100].
[54] Brody: In response to [51]: exploitation is necessary for all economies to grow.
Without the use of smaller countries for manufacturing prices in larger countries would skyrocket
and the smaller countries must allow it to happen or they will have no output at all
because no one will purchase their products. The only way this could not happen is if we
lived in a perfect utopia shared by all the world. But I don’t want that and I would guess no
one else does either because we like setting ourselves apart through status and possessions.
Next Message by Brody is [242].
[55] Samantha: Corruption or Exploitation? Andy’s post [51] mentioned that it is “sad
that the richest nations are not trying to help poor nations but . . . exploit them,” while
that exploitation is definitely deplorable and occurring, think of the downside, which is that
the rich nations did not help poor nations at all. Would poor nations do better if no one
loaned to them in the first place, so they could not build necessary building like hospitals
and businesses? Or perhaps the answer is to not loan the money and just give it away? The
conflict then arises though that the money would then not be spent on things that have a
return; essentially wasted or through corruption, where it is ferreted away. It is plausible
that a country may not waste the money but may not be able to repay it, in such a case there
are still ample ways for a country to receive help, by extending the loan or requesting the
country to release them from repayment. In either such case though the nation must prove to
be using the money wisely. Are there strings attached? Absolutely, but no more than what
the country knew it was getting itself into. I do not believe that giving loans is a worse evil
than not giving anything to a poor nation in dire need of a hospital.
Next Message by Samantha is [56].
[60] Trailrunner: How far in order to conform? I am currently volunteering at the Sundance
Film Festival and had the opportunity last night to watch approximately 30 minutes of
a movie titled “Be Like Others.” It is about a highly controversial subject and I do not bring

338 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
it up because of this controversy, but simply as something that opened my mind to issues
that are currently going on in another country.
In Iran, because of Islamic Law, homosexuality is punishable by death. Interestingly
enough, sex-change operations are completely legal and actually very acceptable. During
the portion of the film that I saw, a young man was going to the authorities to get a permit
that allowed him to wear womens’ clothing. He was explaining to an official why it was that
he needed to get this permit (so as to prevent him from being harassed by the police), and
during this time he also brought up the issue that women are held to a much higher standard
of dress then the men are. In order to dress like a woman, he would have to adhere to all
of the additional standards applied to women (his head must be covered, he must wear long
sleeves, and more) and give up the freedoms that he had dressing as a man, and yet he was
willing to accept these limitations in his life. The official gave him this permit almost without
question. Along the line of receiving permits allowing someone to dress a specific way, the
welfare system contributes funding to those that are going through sex-change operations,
although they must fill out the paperwork required by the system. Thus, the acceptance
of sex-change operations is visibly acceptable in this country through the support of their
welfare system.
The primary focus of the film was about the fact that those that are attracted to the same
sex, must deny who they are and accept the only label that is legally allowed for them and
that is the label of “transsexual.” These people are willing to go through horrific surgeries in
order to change their sex. Not only do they go through the surgery, but their birth certificates
are changed as well. Their families, and more specifically their parents, must accept that
they no longer have a brother or a son, but now have a sister or a daughter. Obviously, this
is not something that just easily happens and as a result, these individuals can end up on the
streets, tossed away like trash.
The movie looks closely at Dr. Bahram Mir-Jalali of Tehran, who performs more sex
change operations in a year than the entire country of France does in 10 years. When interviewed,
he said that he tells prospective candidates that they will be going through the
“operation from hell.” He explains the extreme pain that one would go through for a week
afterward and the challenges associated with the surgery, yet people continue to go through
this process in order to fit in.
What must it be like to live in a country where you are told who you can and can not
be. . . ..where you are shamed into changing who you are at your core? And can a person
ever truly escape this shame and be a whole person, even with these drastic steps? Life is
challenging enough with the usual day-to-day issues that we must all deal with, but to be
faced with the stigmas and limitations that these people are presented with, is very sad to
me.
Message [60] referenced by [69] and [78]. Next Message by Trailrunner is [150].
[65] CousinIt: Who profits at whose expense?: a problem of structure and ignorance.
I am writing in response to Hans’ [44] comments in response to Matt’s [43] discussion.
I agree with Hans that wealth disparity is a matter of the structural inequities of productive
relations in capitalist society. Workers are not compensated equitably for their labor. Profits

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 339
gained by the capitalist are grounded in this unfair trade of labor and the products of labor
for inadequate wages. This is a characteristic of a social structure that prioritizes private
ownership of the means of production over public wellbeing and social equality. In its
structure, capitalism favors one class over all others. By some accounts private property,
particularly ownership of the means of production and natural resources is a crime against
humanity. This is a notion that many of us might find incomprehensible, if not absurd, but
only because all that we know from our own individual experience is a society where private
ownership of such things ‘appears’ as a given fact, as a ‘natural’ condition, as ‘just the way
things are.’ Let us stop to consider, however, the radical basis and origins of the notion that
any one person, or group has, by right, priority to resources and productive apparatuses of
domination.
If we go back far enough, it is not hard to understand that the notion of ownership starts
with an act of exclusion and violence; I want exclusive access to a watering hole. I decide
that only myself and my friends and closest social allies will be allowed to use it as a resource.
I unilaterally stake my claim to the territory. When someone other than those whom
I deem as having privileged access try to use the watering hole they are driven away by
threat of viloence. I then decide that I want something that falls within the territory of a rival
group. They do not want to give up their claim, so I decide through threat of violence and
use of violent force to drive them away, enslave them, or make them concede to let me take
what I want without resistance from them. Like it or not, this is the natural history of private
ownership.
I would argue that this is still the underlying method of capitalist domination in modern
society. Colonialism, exploitation, theft, slavery, and genocide are the means by which
modern wealthy states and wealthy classes became wealthy in the first place, thus gaining
an unfair advantage from the get-go. It is also the means by which they continue to amass
more wealth at the expense of the exploited classes, here in the ‘first world,’ as well as in the
‘second’ and ‘third world’ countries.This all works out rather well for the dominant classes
for quite a while. However, because indigenous populations are shoved aside, murdered, or
indentured so that capitalist firms can take the resources from under their feet, the exploitation
at the heart of capitalist enterprises cannot be disputed, except by way of ideological
blindness and selective ignorance. Some of the exploited are not so easily convinced that
they are not the victims of a structure of violence. This is why legal systems arise whose
main function of supreme importance is to protect the property rights of the wealthy. Property
rights are a legal fiction invented by the needs of a particular class (in collusion with the
state) to protect the spoils of violent exploitation and murderous theft.
We are now at a point in world history when it is becoming more and more apparent that
a) capitailism has failed to produce the utopia of a carefree world of luxury for all and b) the
current mode of capitalist production and comsumption, which relies on the ‘invisible hand’
of blind market forces and the profit motive, if intended to be expanded to include every person
in a growing world population, cannot be sustained by the earth’s environment. If even
all the people in China demand the same standard of living that Americans have enjoyed,
the environment will surely crumble under this demand, i.e. capitalism fails unequivocally.
This raises the ante from a merely moral imperitive to one that is based on species survival.

340 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
As Kenneth Burke (yes, the ‘occupational psychosis’ guy) points out in “Permanence and
Change”, the current system is a system of doled-privileges that masquerades as a meritocracy.
That is, it is a system in which what really determines the wealth and privilege of an
individual, of a class or of a nation is a matter of being born on ‘the right side of the fence’
and on who one is able to make friends with. Since this is the case, Burke contends that all
people should benefit from collective wealth equally as it is the case that all people, even the
poor and homeless, even those in the ‘second’ and ‘third’ worlds, fulfill a neccessary role in
the perpetuation of such a society as a whole. The poor and homeless fulfill the role of the
available labor pool (untapped labor power) as well as serving as the example to all the rest
of us of what can happen to us and to our children if we do not agree to trade our labor at an
unfair rate, as dictated by the wealth appropriating/means of production owning classes.
It is interesting to me that socialism is derided as inherently evil for (among many other
reasons) the reasoning that it produces sloth and removes incentives for improvement through
personal profit. On the contrary, I would contend that a system of doled-privileges produces
the very same thing (within even the privileged classes) at the expense of general social
well-being and the collective benefits of individual creativity. Those on the dole are, for
a large part, there by way of illusory notions of merit and entitlement that must be upheld
by way of violence, exploitation, law, and economic terror for the individual, not through
sustained actual creativity aimed at social well-being and equity. Human beings are shown
to be an inherently ‘social’ animal (not an inherently ‘capitalist’ animal)...we all depend on
the existence and mutual aid (voluntary or involuntary) of every other one of us...therefore,
why not socialism? For the ‘social animal’, socialism seems to me a much more appropriate
socio-economic structure (See also, Albert Einstein’s “Why Socialism?”). If the ultimate
end-result of the current structure of social-productive relations amounts to species annihilation
through environmental collapse or nuclear extinction in trade for private profits, then
can we not ask ourselves “of what good is it, after all?” We may be the only species capable
of inventing our own extinction. Maybe it is time to trade it for something that all people
everywhere benefit from (in the form of a survivable future?). Better late than never.
Message [65] referenced by [67], [71], [113], and [2008fa:44]. Next Message by CousinIt is [126].
[69] Srichardson: benefits of conforming? After reading Trailrunner’s [60] about the
Sundance movie showing how people go through these terrible and painful surgeries to make
them fit in the only way they feel that they can. This is the only way for them to make it in
their country as it is really the only option for them to follow who they feel they are.
It makes me wonder why people feel threatened by people who are different than they
are. Is there any kind of benefit for forcing these people to try and fit into the majority and
make them the same as everyone else around them? What would Marx say about this? It
seems to me that people’s differences benefit the society in general, and economically.
Next Message by Srichardson is [130].
[71] Hans: Greatest Expropriation in History is Going on Right Now! I am always
glad to read a radical viewpoint like CousinIt’s [65], so that I am not the only Commie here.
But if we talk about the genocide and theft that laid the foundation of the modern capitalist
wealth, we should not overlook that the biggest expropriation ever is happening under our
very eyes, and it is not yet too late, we can do something about it. I am talking about the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 341
destruction of our climate system, which is going to kill billions in the poorer countries and
which will also make life much more unpleasant and precarious in the rich countries.
After a long period of denial that climate change is even an issue, now the ruling class
is rolling out their remedies. These remedies are every bit as bad as the problem. They
certainly have figured out how to turn the catastrophe for humankind which their system is
causing into a source of private profits:
(1) biofuels which should really be called death fuels because they take food away from
the hungry.
(2) nuclear energy with its unresolved storage problems and which is inevitably linked to
nuclear weapons proliferation.
(3) carbon sequestration which is an unproven technology that gives the coal companies
an excuse to promote coal. Coal and other fossil fuels must simply be left in the ground.
(4) Cap and Trade which creates an entirely new form of private property, property of
the atmosphere’s capability to absorb greenhouse gasses, with windfall profits to the biggest
polluters.
The ruling class will not voluntarily do the right thing, which means, promote renewable
energy, energy savings, sharing of new technologies world wide to avert the disaster, building
a smart electric grid, feed-in tariffs which allow the little people to become involved in the
energy business. A big and well informed mass movement is necessary if we want to pass
on a livable planet to our children.
Tonight is one of the big events of the focus-the nation campaign which the University of
Utah is thankfully participating in. At 6:30 in the Panorama East Room of Union Building,
University of Utah Campus there will be the Interfaith Climate Change Panel Discussion
with moderator Elaine Emmi (Quaker) and speakers Bishop Carolyn Tanner Irish (Episcopalian),
Rabbi Daniel Gomez-Alaniz (Jewish), Vaughn Lovejoy (Buddhist), George Handley
(Church of Latter Day Saints), and Imam Muhammad Shoeabe Mehtar.
6:30 pm-8:00 pm, Olpin Union Panorama East Room. If you can fit it into your schedule,
be there! It will be interesting for you and good for us all if you get involved.
Message [71] referenced by [82], [156], and [269]. Next Message by Hans is [76].
[78] Goethe: RE: How far in order to conform? Regarding [60], I find this fascinating
that there would be a socialist program for sex-change reconstruction in a country where
the president refuses to admit the existence of homosexuality. Of course this same man(?)
refuses to believe the persecution of Jews took place.
What are they trying to achieve? What is the reasoning here?
Do they really believe that by changing the sex (surgically) it will not be a form of homosexuality?
I think that there is a difference in being a homosexual and transgender. Amazing the
power of a religion that can persuade or force you to comply to the socially accepted norm.
What is very frightening is the fact we have a religious cleric as a front runner for the
republican presidential nomination.

342 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Was it Marx who said that religion is the opium of the masses?
Next Message by Goethe is [87].
[81] Bmellor: Socialized medicine? Sign me up. There are two people with whom I
work, who are vividly opposed to socialized medicine. The sad thing is that they are the
type of individuals who stand the most to gain from such a system. One is a diabetic and the
other has had multiple kidney surgeries with no success, he is on dialysis in the afternoons.
I made it clear to one of them yesterday that if Hillary Clinton became president it would
be to his benefit. He said something interesting in response... “Socialized medicine is a first
step to complete socialism.”
Luis Kahn, the famous architect said that “where there is fear, true creativity cannot
exist.” When I heard that I immediately thought countries distressed by war. What Einsteins
or Shakespeares might exist in those war-torn countries but don’t have that chance to develop
their talents? It is hard to think of a new concept or new idea if you are constantly worried
about a bomb being dropped on your house.
Think about this nation and fear. What do we fear? I doubt many people are worried
about bombs being dropped on their home. Many are worried about their debt; they are
scared and are worried about the bills that are piling up at their homes that they cannot pay.
True socialized medicine can eliminate that concern for many people, one less bill to worry
about and fear. An efficient form of health care is where the Doctors collect a paycheck from
not the insurance companies, or sick individuals, but the government.
Some might say, “The doctors won’t participate in socialized medicine, and the quality
of healthcare will decrease.” To them I would point out insurance is not paying for our
nation’s weapons, yet we have the best armed forces in the world. I do not hear the military
contractors complaining about the government’s compensation. The same can be true of
our doctors and medicine. I can see the dangers of corruption in socialism; however I can
see how our healthcare system is broken, and already corrupt. We all win with socialized
medicine, (unless you are an insurance company). My insurance healthcare premium has
gone up 19% annually over the last two years, while my deductible has gone up as well.
How long can we keep that up? Luckily I am healthy, but like most Americans I fear the day
when I will no longer be healthy. Not because of the sickness, injury, or pain but because of
the offset to the quality of life healthcare bills can cause. I can only imagine how those two
guys at my work must feel, having to pay co-pays along with the premium each month.
Message [81] referenced by [82], [87], [89], [94], [102], and [107]. Next Message by Bmellor is [250].
[82] Hans: Health Care Reform – Another Bogus Solution. Those interested in the
issues brought up by Bmellor’s [81] might enjoy going to the Questioning Minds forum at
the SLC Main Library tomorrow, Sunday at 2 pm. I am enclosing their announcement below.
Judi Hilman and Elizabeth Garbe will be presenting a proposal similar to Hillary Clinton’s
approach: a law which would force everybody to buy private health insurance which, in
order to be affordable, would have to have high deductibles etc.
I will be there, and if you need brownie points for attendance please come up to me and
give me your name. (I am really tall with white hair and a beard.) I told some of my friends
from Utah Jobs with Justice about this event. They will be there too in the audience. (I hope
I won’t get into troubles for this; Mike and Lynda from Questioning Minds and Linda from

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 343
Jobs with Justice are both neighbors of mine in the cohousing community where I live.) Jobs
with Justice will politely argue that the proposal discussed by the presenters has nothing to
do with socialism but is just corporate welfare for the private insurance companies. What is
really needed is a true single payer health insurance system as every other advanced capitalist
country has it. They will have flyers explaining the difference.
To me this whole issue is just another example of what I said in [71], this time not in
the environmental arena but in health care. There is a real problem, our nation is in a health
care crisis, but the “solutions” offered by those in power are much more designed to increase
profits for the corporations than to solve the problem. One might say they use the problem
as an excuse to come up with yet another profitable scheme for the big companies.
Should be an interesting discussion. Here is the announcement by the organizers of the
event:
QUESTIONING MINDS 2007-2008 LECTURE-AND-DISCUSSION SERIES PRESENTS
“Health Reform in Utah: Where Are We Headed and Are We On the Right Road”
Judi Hilman and Elizabeth Garbe
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Meet and Greet: 1:45 pm. Presentation: 2:00 pm. Meeting Closes: 3:30 pm Salt Lake
Main Library, 210 East 400 South, Fourth Floor Conference Room Free and Open to the
Public
Judi Hilman is the Executive Director of the Utah Health Policy Project. She has an MA
from Cornell. Before coming to Utah in ’99 she directed development efforts at a community
rehabilitation agency serving people with disabilities. More recently Judi served as Health
Policy Director at Utah Issues, Center for Poverty Research and Action. Her work covers
a broad range of policy issues impacting the uninsured, low-income medically underserved,
people with disabilities, and ethnic minorities.
Elizabeth Garbe is the Coverage Initiatives Director at the Utah Health Policy Project.
She received her Masters in Social Work from the University of Denver. Elizabeth spent six
years working at a variety of non-profits serving Wyoming youth. She worked as the Policy
Analyst at the Colorado Community Health Network, Colorado’s primary care association
and recently moved to Salt Lake to join the Utah Health Policy Project team.
“A record number of Utahns are without health coverage. National estimates rank Utah
as having a higher than average rate of uninsured residents, 17.4% or 442,000 residents,
despite having much higher than average median annual income ($55,179). About the same
number are under-insured. Utah is also leading the nation in small businesses dropping
health insurance for their employees. From 2000 to 2004, health premiums for Utahns
increased 66%, but wages only increased 13%. If nothing is done, health premium costs will
surpass household income within 20 years.
This year Utah’s legislature will begin to discuss how Utah should reform its broken
health system. Come listen to and discuss what is currently being proposed, an analysis of
the proposal and how you can become involved in the conversation.”

344 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Suggested Resources:
Utah Health Policy Project
http://www.healthpolicyproject.org
Community Catalyst
http://www.communitycatalyst.org
Families USA
http://www.familiesusa.org
Kaiser Family Foundation
http://www.kff.org
Alliance for Health Reform
http://www.allhealth.org/index.asp
Questioning Minds is a non-profit, educational forum with 501(c)(3) status. Meetings
are held on the second and fourth Sundays of each month, September through May, except
major holiday weekends, in the Salt Lake City Main Library. See
http://www.questioning-minds.org
for coming events and speaker-suggested readings.
Next Message by Hans is [86].
[87] Goethe: efficiency of government run health care? In response to Bmellor [81]
I will agree with you that we do need a health care reform that provides for everyone. I
will not agree with your comparison of government weapons spending to healthcare. There
are no complaints from contractors because they are paid large amounts for their services.
The defense of the nation has priority over the health of its citizens. This is a contradiction,
and I bet Marx would want to take a closer look at it!!
I don’t have the answer for the healthcare problems we all face, but we should look at
other countries who have been successful with their programs.
One other observation I would like to note; health insurance does not guarantee coverage.
How many of you have been denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition? WTF... If I
am sick or think that I am, and I go to the doc. there is a 75% chance that they will pull the
pre-existing condition clause on me. (75% is a guess I think it is close)...
If we do get a health plan that is controlled by the government, it will need to be efficient.
Realistically this will be another way for someone to monopolize on healthcare. The only
thing worse that an HMO would be a government run HMO....
Think about it!!! :)
Next Message by Goethe is [98].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 345
[89] FacistFrank: Re: Socialized medicine? Sign me up. The question raised in [81]
about whether our country should switch to a socialized or quasi socialized/capitalist system
is an interesting one and far out of my league. But this is why I am going to college, to learn
more. I feel like I would be going out on a limb to give a solid answer and my solid support
to any issue, but i’ll take a crack at it. I have opinion on this issue and not fact as Plato would
say.
Okay a common criticism I hear from those opposed to a socialized system, is that it will
lower the amount of good doctors in the field and raise healthcare costs. As to how it will
raise healthcare costs I cannot see, at least directly. Could it lower the amount of doctors or
the quality of doctors and healthcare? I see a definite possibility that it could if mishandled,
and anyone that has not been living under a rock for the last 7 years is familiar with what
an incompetent bumbling government is like. Government is frequently incompetent, but
not always incompetent, under bright minds it can be extraordinarily efficient. Perhaps I
am thinking in capitalist terms here, but it makes sense to me that if doctors were paid less
under a socialist system, we would get fewer doctors, and doctors of lesser quality, overall.
If human beings were at the stage where we could all serve our fellow man for free, if we
were all like Gandhi and Christ, then we would not get less doctors, but very few humans
are like this, at least at this juncture in human social evolution. If under a socialized system
we pay doctors even more than we do now, then we will get more doctors of better quality,
as the more intelligent minds of our society gravitate to the fields that pay the highest.
Look at our public education system, we pay teachers a low wage for a bachelors degree,
and we get teacher shortages and incompetent teachers. Right now in America I believe
the problem is the insurance companies, they make billions by raising their coverage, and
they even make the prices so high that millions of hardworking Americans can not even
afford health care. If we can take those billions and give them back to the people, who
I believe earned that money in the first place, then we solve this problem. Unfortunately
this is politically dangerous. An elected official that voted for this would probably not be
given the opportunity to ever vote in congress again. So instead the solution is to redistribute
wealth, but mask it by offering a government insurance program that charges fairly, enough
to cover the actual costs of health care. If this is in the market, then the private insurance
companies will either have to lower their prices to compete, or go out of business. Of course
they do not want to give up their profits so they will fight this tooth and nail in the halls of
congress. Lyndon Johnson and FDR beat them in the past and it is possible to do it again. If
too much change is introduced into a society or a person, that change will be rejected. it is
like trying to swallow a jawbreaker whole, instead of devouring it over time.
If wages stay high for doctors or get even higher, and costs are covered, I see no problem
with a socialized health care system.
Hans posted a comment earlier that I thought was incredibly brilliant, it had to do with
individuality and the collective. That the individual is defined by his relationships in a collective.
If there was no perspective from other people, I believe the individual would not
exist. Just like how there would be no pleasure without pain, no good without evil. I believe
individuality is an illusion, As Marcus Aurelius says, man is a social being that was
meant to cooperate with each other. My father an I explored an analogy a few months ago,

346 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
it was whether a car engine, and all the pieces in it cooperate with each other in harmony, or
compete with each other, to ultimately make the car move. The truth is they do both, those
pieces are grinding against and pushing off of each other, while at the same time cooperating
and achieving their own function to make the car move. Many times if one piece breaks all
the others become useless. My point is society the world and the universe works in a form
of ordered cooperative competition, but this seems to be a contradiction, cooperative competition.
Perhaps the universe is a contradiction, and still makes sense, some kind of taoist
balance, maybe that is why we humans have such a hard time figuring it out.
Message [89] referenced by [94], [100], and [102]. Next Message by FacistFrank is [116].
[91] Chris: EnergySolutions nuclear waste dumping. From what I hear, EnergySolutions
wants to import 20,000 tons of nuclear waste from Italy and dispose some of it here in
Utah. Before approving EnergySolutions’ request, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is
holding a board meeting to get our input.
What: Radiation Control Board Meeting
When: Feb. 1st, 2:00 – 4:00 pm
Where: Conference Room 101
Department of Environmental Quality (Bldg 2)
168 North 1950 West
Salt Lake
Next Message by Chris is [92].
[93] Jason: More on Socialized Health care. When looking at socialized health care I
think it’s a good idea to look at countries that have been doing it successfully for a number of
years and compare. Canada and several western European countries have been on a system
for awhile now and the common complaints from them are as follows. Typically for any
major surgery there is a long wait list since medicine is free anyone can walk in and get
treated. If you are healthy enough to wait, this may not be a problem, but in the U.S. you
could probably be treated immediately. Also, in more socialist countries their taxes are
usually around 50% of their total income. That is a lot more than we’ve ever paid here, in
the lower tax brackets anyway. Finally, since the world of medicine is so heavily driven in
this country by money I’ve heard it is worlds farther ahead than most in terms of technology.
I don’t think social health care is a bad thing, I just wanted to list some of the reasons
against it since I haven’t heard them in this discussion yet. Most of those have a fairly good
retort. Struggling families probably already have to wait in horrendous lines at free clinics
when they aren’t well. The care they get there probably isn’t as good either, but due to
insane health care costs they have no choice. As for the taxes, if the country rearranged it’s
spending a little bit, we probably wouldn’t have to raise taxes much at all. As is, this country
spends ridiculous amounts of money on defense, and because of that, even more money on
interest. Have any of you seen that pie chart of U.S. military spending compared to the rest
of the world? The U.S. makes up more than half of it if I remember correctly. I’ve also heard
figures of up to a third of the U.S. budget is just used for paying interest on the incredible
national debt. With some reworking I’m sure health care could be affordable with the current
income of the country. Also welfare programs would probably need less money if the poor

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 347
now have free health care. As far as the technology argument, while it is true that the U.S.
is quite a bit more advanced in some fields of medicine than other countries, some of the
most promising new technologies are being held back by the FDA that are being developed
further in other countries. For instance, stem cell research continues on in Europe, but last
I heard the U.S. has an all out ban on them. If we switched to a more social system I don’t
see a huge drop technological advances. If anything a reworking of the FDA in conjunction
with the new program could advance technology. Besides, most researchers aren’t usually
the ones out there for huge amounts of money. If you look at most research professors, they
probably did not get into their line of work for the money. So as long as there is money for
them to keep researching the U.S. should be okay.
The cons have some weight, especially if you are rich. However I think the net gain for
society by switching to a more social system, if done right, would be astronomical.
Next Message by Jason is [224].
[94] Matt: Socialized medicine equals better treatment for all. Is it really true what
Bmellor [81] stats, that “we all win with socialized medicine”? Well, after watching the
Michael Moore movie Sicko, I definitely would say YES! If you have not seen this movie
now is the time since we are in an election year, and if Hillary Clinton is elected she will
definitely try to socialize our current healthcare system. Why would she want to do this if
our current healthcare system has been working for many many years now? As Michael
Moore points out, it’s because our current system is not working for those individuals who
can’t afford it. For example, I have a friend who has his own construction business and does
not have insurance because it is too expensive. He would rather take his chances at getting
injured than paying $1,200 per month and a high deductable. Well, the problem is he did
get really hurt when he fell off a building and shattered the bones in his leg. He now has
over $300,000 in medical bills and unable to work. If we had socialized medicine everything
would have been covered without the $300,000 price tag.
I’m sure Socialized medicine is not free, but I know it’s got to be better than a 19 percent
insurance premium increase every other year as Bmellor [81] incurred. And it’s got to be
better than me paying 12 percent of my paycheck toward healthcare. If taxes increased
5-10 percent and everyone could have health care our capitalistic society would be much
better off. Michael Moore actually points this out in his movie as he interviews patients and
Doctors in Canada, France, and Europe. Doctors do indeed receive their paycheck from the
government, but they still make a good living. One Doctor that was interviewed lived in a
$700,000 house and had a $50,000 car. The doctor said that he lives just fine and that he does
not need 4 nice houses and 3 nice cars as American doctors have so they can feel satisfied
about the work they do. He also said the more patients of his that are healthy and that he can
get to quit smoking, the more money he will get paid. Imagine that kind of thinking here in
the U.S. , where we are more concerned about the people around us then money.
As FacistFrank [89] states, why would doctors want to work under socialistic conditions?
Well, it will most likely come down to fundamental economics of supply and demand. If
a good doctor decides he wants to leave because he will get paid less under a socialized
system, then patients will probably not go to him because the government will most likely

348 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
not cover services under nonparticipating doctors. Eventually the good doctor’s supply of
customers will decrease causing them to ultimately change over to socialized medicine.
As you can tell I am definitely for socialized medicine as I feel if will bring better healthcare
and treatment to everyone and not just those who can afford it. I am just worried it
will never come to pass as the insurance companies and even doctors will try to prevent it
from ever happening by paying congressman off. I like to think that our society is based on
morals and just money, but in the end those who have the money make the rules.
Message [94] referenced by [102]. Next Message by Matt is [266].
[100] Aaron: Socialized Medicine. The argument over socialized medicine in [89] is
interesting and confusing to me at the same time. This is a discussion that many debaters
have argued over for many years in many different economies around the world. First,
the argument fascistFrank makes about the number of doctors that would be working in a
socialist economy does not account for a function that I believe has much to do with whom
becomes a Dr. The pay does not have everything to do with the decision to become a MD.
I really do believe that there are a lot of MD’s out there that took up the profession because
they genuinely want to serve people. Just like members of the armed forces, who don’t make
much money, who just might love to serve. Second, this argument does not mention good old
fashion American ingenuity and entrepreneurship. Many doctors might love the challenge of
building a practice and a business from scratch, and enjoy the financial fruits of their labor in
the office and in their business. I also, don’t understand the argument about giving the profits
of insurance companies away and back to the public. Isn’t that the foundation of a capitalist
economy? business and profits? The moral issues of health care costs are a separate issue to
me... we can’t just have the government taking profits of companies in an industry because
they think it is not fair. Although health care costs are rising, I think the best course of action
is to let the economy and business let competition help us out. A company will eventually
have to come along that is cheaper than a competitor and the costs of health care will start
to sink.
Next Message by Aaron is [210].
[102] Allen: Socialized Medicine. I agree with the two people that Bmellor [81] lists.
In his email Bmellor states that the socialized system would benefit them, but the socialized
system would also cause a few other problems. The government would increase taxes to
pay for the program, which would basically steal money from your wallet to help pay for
someone else’s health care. The program would also make it so patients would not try to
find the best possible prices for the best possible services available, because every month
you will pay the same amount of money and the same copay for each visit, which might
cause problems with some companies that compete for other companies for employees offer
health care as an incentive. Another problem that this program would lead to would be what
FacistFrank [89] states, basically it would stop a physician’s incentive to provide competitive
care and the care provided would not be of the best quality because physicians would leave
the system and find a better place for more opportunities for them. So as stated by Matt [94],
is socialized medicine equal better treatment for all? For some that can’t afford it, I would
say yes, but for the most part it will eventually lead to lesser quality of health care for more
money.
Next Message by Allen is [105].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 349
[103] Ande: Stock Market. Is the stock market an economic boon or blight? This was
one discussion i had to get in on. After reading a lot of the comments i had to laugh when I
heard that the stock market is a bad thing and that the government is wasting too much money
in making sure the market does not crash or put is in to a true recession. This is a total joke,
the stock market is one of the best things that our economy, country, and government have.
It is an incredible way for people to make money, and put money back into our country’s
economy by investing it back in. It can only help us, who does not like to make money, the
stock market is still the number one place to make money. I was so shocked to hear that
these kids think it is a bad thing and the government needs to stop fueling the market. I
think the government is doing a great job, as well I think the stock market is one of the best
things our economy has and without it and the government we would be in serious trouble
and probably close to a depression.
Next Message by Ande is [194].
[106] Bar: Socialized medicine is stupid. Socialized medicine, the always big debate
topic loved by the left is always highly controversial, because as the preacher’s wife on the
Simpsons always screams, “the children, what about the children! will someone think about
the children!” It’s always about government helping people who can’t help themselves: the
poor, children, the elderly. Society has a social obligation to protect people, even dumb
people, even people that don’t save their money, even the homeless. Each of these people
should be helped by the society that watches over them to a certain extent. On the other
hand, society should never influence or reward self and socially destructive behaviors. Every
policy should set-up the society to form a meritocracy, not the fallacy on an egalitarian
Utopian society. The cold hard facts about socialized medicine is that the quality of health
care drops, and the elimination of competition decreases efficiency and the importance of the
individual patients. The crime of socialized medicine is that it destroys the monopolization
of medicine. Leftists always whine about high priced medicines, that the little pills that
cost cents to produce cost some, especially those without insurance, hundreds of dollars a
month to buy. I always ask these people if they would like any cheese with their wine,
but they just look at me funny. The fact that these medicines exist in the first place, is
because the government, through patents gives large pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer
monopoly pricing on medicines. These companies invest billions of dollars to develop and
test new drugs, for the benefit of all mankind, can anyone say Viagra! The only way that
these medicines can be developed is through large investment. Under socialized medicine
the prices of these drugs would be reduced, just like all the generic drugs that come from
Canada, to market equilibrium prices destroying the incentive to invest in new medicines,
which I consider a tragedy, where paying $100 a month for insurance is not. When was
the last time you heard of a company from Europe make a medical breakthrough or a new
type of surgery? Heck how many hundreds of new stem cell companies have formed in
the US in the past few years compared to those of Europe. I follow pharmaceutical stocks
avidly and almost no foreign companies can compete with the new technologies that come
out of US corporations. Why, if socialized medicine is so great and if its “human nature” to
serve our fellow man by going to years and years of medical school to make no more than
an undergrad, why is the US still leading the world in medicine? It’s the meritocracy in the
schools and the reward of high pay, and if this is destroyed, god help us all. Now I agree that,
no one is going to care about all these technological breakthroughs if they aren’t accessible

350 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
to them, unless its to spite European socialism which sometimes I see as a rational reason
to do almost anything. That’s why the government has to play a role in getting health care
to the lower class, but by socializing it, it does more harm than good. The best solution
would be to subsidize insurance companies for lower income people and make it obligatory
for those who can pay for insurance like rich people in order to reduce externalities; we have
mandatory car insurance why not mandatory health insurance? This way huge tax increases
are not necessary, and it doesn’t destroy the business culture that gives us all those medical
goodies. I recently interned for the Untied Nations, and I worked closely with another intern
from France or as I like to call it the socialist Mecca. I got to know him well, and some
of his friends through Facebook, an interesting fact was that the vast majority of his friends
from France worked outside of their country. Could that be because of the value of the
Euro, that the French are loved by all the people of the world, or that other countries need
snotty french laborers, no, its due to their unbelievably high unemployment rate, caused by
their socialist policies needing high taxes. The other horrible tragedy of socialized medicine
is higher taxes. High taxes are crimes against humanity, and cause for revolution; tea tax
anyone?
Message [106] referenced by [111], [118], and [120]. Next Message by Bar is [123].
[107] Rey: The death of the human spirit. In discussing the idea of a socialized health
care system, its supporters acknowledge that it “may” be difficult to keep motivated elite
physicians. They seem however to recognize it in a light hearted manner and easy explain it
away. The long time critique of any socialist system is the idea that man will not perform to
its fullest capabilities without an incentive, equal to the work that is required. Some time ago
I read The Naked Communist by Cleon Skouson. In recent review I found several statements
to be insightful. As Skousen approaches the idea of a stateless, classless society he begins
with the analysis of the very nature of man. He feels strongly, as do I, that man will “always
possess the desire for individual expression and self-determination, [and] the ambition to
improve their circumstances and the motive to excel above others.” It is this competition,
this ambition that brings innovation and progress. I am not ignorant to the fact that this
“competition” can breed horrific actions, however I believe this to be a flaw in the individual
rather than the system. Now in direct response to [81] Bmellor’s statement, “Some might
say, ‘The doctors won’t participate in socialized medicine, and the quality of healthcare will
decrease.’
To them I would point out insurance is not paying for our nation’s weapons, yet we
have the best armed forces in the world. I do not hear the military contractors complaining
about the government’s compensation.” The reason military contractors are not complaining
because they generally earn up to 150% more than a normal, govt. employed, military
officer. This might I add has created a new problem of losing elite military personal to
contracting companies such as Blackwater, which in the long run will and has, raised military
spending. It is logical to think that elite physicians would create a similar corporation to
protect themselves and their wages, creating the same high cost nightmare. Now if we were
to keep wages high as FacistFrank has suggested we run into further difficulties. In his
post he states, “. . . if costs are covered I see no problem with socialized health care system.”
Therein lies the heart of the problem, covering the cost! It’s apparent that wages need to
stay high, to keep incentive high, but who is going to cover the cost? It will be those who

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 351
have been diligent and hard working, because it is they who have the excess production to
give. Obviously taxes will rise to astronomical percentages, just as they have in countries
that do provide socialized health care. Personally I don’t want Uncle Sam in my pockets
anymore than he already is, on the contrary it will be me who decides when, where and
to whom I provide assistance to. To examine further the danger of covering costs from a
socialist point of view I will use another example from Skouson. In a classroom where
a 75% grade is needed to pass there will be a wide range of students who perform above
and below the standard. If the classroom were to become socialized, those who perform
well because of hard work and determination will be forced to give up their excess points to
those who were lazy and indolent. In the long run the hard working students would lose their
incentive to perform because they know it will be stripped from them and given to those who
are undeserving. Over time the high producers will sink down to a lower level of production,
most likely just enough to get by. Now the overall level of production has dropped and there
is no excess “points” to close any type of gap between the two classes of students.
With this in mind I would note however, that there is a general consensus among humanity
that is right and true to help those who simply cannot help themselves. Traditionally this
has been done at the discretion of the individual who has excess production. For this I
am completely supportive. However this is a far different approach than a simple socialist
strategy of being forced to share excess production. In the same vain, I am supportive of the
ideology that anyone with excess production has a duty to lift and help those who may be
struggling. Again, however, it needs to come at their discretion.
I am not entirely sure what the solution is to the nation’s health care crisis. I do feel
strongly though that socializing health care or anything for that matter is not the answer. I
am sure that in my rebuttal I have missed key insights and would invite you to bring those
to my attention. As I would love to discuss this further. In closing I would like to simply
state, it seems very evident to me that any type of socialist system would lower society to
the lowest common denominator. In the meantime killing the human spirit of ambition and
determination.
Next Message by Rey is [211].
[110] PrivateProperty: Re: Socialized Healthcare. I appreciate this discussion on
socialized medicine and would like to offer my input as well, as I consider it an important
topic.
Let me start by asserting that the people of the United States would be in a much better
position if it were to adopt some form of socialized medicine. And by socialized medicine
I don’t merely mean a Federal health insurance program, but in fact a complete overhaul of
the legal framework which perpetuates our extremely fragmented and inefficient system of
health care.
Let me point out that countries with socialized programs have a much healthier populace
than the United States. Socialized programs encourage its citizens to take an active role
in their health care. These people go in for more checkups and are more concerned with
preventative care. Medical problems are discovered earlier and therefore are more easily
treated. This contrasts with the common scenario in the US, which is to wait until you feel
bad in deciding to visit the doctor.

352 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
There is an argument that socialized systems do not have as advanced technology as
the United States does. That is absolutely true. In fact, we have unnecessarily Because
of the devastating risks of malpractice suits, physicians do everything they can to avoid
legal liability, which usually involves exhausting all options for a patient. This includes
incorporating the very latest technologies, which can result in very expensive procedures,
with possibly very little benefit to the patient. New technology is not evaluated for its costefficiency
before it is implemented. Why bother when the costs of technology are passed
on to the patient? Often a hospital will acquire a new piece of equipment, and in effort to
recoup their costs, pressure physicians to recommend to their patients a procedure involving
the equipment, even the procedure the procedure is unnecessary. Technology in the US may
be more advanced, on average. But I challenge someone to find evidence that our healthcare
is significantly more EFFECTIVE (don’t even bother with ’more efficient’) than that of other
nations. And what use is technology if it isn’t effective?
True, a socialized system would mean paying more in taxes. However, this also means
not paying for private health insurance, which is a whole other monster altogether. I would
argue that a social program would end up costing patients less than under our current private
system, and therefore there would be a net increase to patients’ disposable income.
Also, as far as the ‘long lines’ argument against social medicine, I would challenge anyone
to find evidence that supports this. If anything, the reverse may be true. My experience
in private health care in the US has very often involved ridiculous wait times for all medical
procedures, from the most routine to the most urgent. I like to contrast my lifetime experience
here with my travels in the UK, which as you know has socialized medicine under
the National Health Service (NHS). When I did have an appointment, wait times were very
short (appointments actually meant something). One time I was in need of emergency care
in downtown London. An ambulance promptly came to pick me up and I was promptly
treated at a nearby hospital. I was released an hour and a half later. I didn’t pay a cent for
anything, and the question of my nationality never entered the picture. The NHS didn’t care
who you were, even if you weren’t a UK citizen, they were going to treat you. I found that
pretty damn inspiring.
Next Message by PrivateProperty is [111].
[111] PrivateProperty: Socialized medicine is not stupid. Bar wrote in [106]:
“The cold hard facts about socialized medicine is that the quality of health care drops,
and the elimination of competition decreases efficiency and the importance of the individual
patients.”
I would like you to find evidence of this. How are you measuring quality of care? How
fast they can get them out of the hospital? Certainly not by how many people (percentagewise)
are effectively treated? Using that yard-stick, your argument wouldn’t hold up. Also,
competition is not a characteristic of medicine. The industry is very fragmented and is
shaped by the relations of physician groups and insurance organizations. It’s not like doctors
undercut each other to draw more patients to their practice.
I like to point out that countries with socialized programs have a much healthier populace
than that of the United States, and as such don’t need as many serious procedures, such as

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 353
surgery. These citizens invest more time and effort in preventative care, and don’t wait for
their conditions to augment themselves. This very healthy behavior wouldn’t be possible if
not for the virtually unlimited access to health care extended to the population.
Why do we lead the world in healthcare? Is it possibly because, due to our ailing health,
we have the highest demand for these very services?
Next Message by PrivateProperty is [127].
[114] Sparky: Separation of State and Church. This question has been on my mind
since the beginning of the presidential race. The current state of the United States and its
political leaders is one that has many people feeling on edge, and the coverage of the race
and how early it has started is an example of this. I am wondering what peoples thoughts
are of the candidates and the roles that religion are playing in the race, with the republicans
who have an ordained minister running as well as a man who served a mission for the LDS
church and was bishop of a ward house, too the democratic party where the slamming of
candidates has involved “insulting” a candidate by calling him Muslim.
Can the American “democracy” really involve a separation of state and church? In a
society where the will of the people is ideally to be followed, would religion undoubtedly
be played into the government and its decisions? With the republican party courting the
evangelical Christian right it would seem so, even though they make up a minority of the
population, they make up a majority of the voting population so it would seem to be an
conundrum to the political leaders elected in to office, taking the will of a few and forcing
it on the majority simply because the ones that voted them into office expect them to follow
their moral obligations to their church and God. What are people thoughts about this? Living
in Utah- where the majority of the population is LDS, and the leaders of the government I
would expect us to have a unique view in to this aspect and how it can affect daily life and
how the government reacts to certain situations.
Message [114] referenced by [126] and [128]. Next Message by Sparky is [170].
[116] FacistFrank: Re: Socialized medicine is stupid. The research and development
side of the pharmaceutical and medical industries is considered a cost if I am not mistaken.
The billions in profit that the insurance companies make, is after all costs including R&D
cost have been paid for. So the high prices that are being paid by those with health insurance,
are high because the insurance companies want billions in profit to go into their bank
accounts. If we taxed some of that and gave it back to the actual people that earned it,
we wouldn’t have the medical problems we have here today. The insurance companies are
charging far beyond the actual costs (including R&D) of health care. Don’t get me wrong,
there is such a thing as fair healthy profit that harnesses good incentive, then there is just
plain robbery profit. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies do this not to cover costs but
because they are an oligopoly that also establishes barriers to entry. This is why there are
no competitors to enter the field and provide the same product for a lower price. The capital
necessary to start a pharmaceutical is more than we will ever earn in a lifetime, getting your
drugs approved by the FDA is another insurmountable hurdle. The scientists you have to
pay are also a capital hurdle, but with the prices that insurance is charging they have already
covered all these costs. This is why they are making sky high profits. Those profits would
not exist unless all costs were already covered.
Next Message by FacistFrank is [124].

354 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
[118] Slash: Socialized medicine is stupid. In response to [106]: The problem with socialized
medicine is politicians namely Democrats argue their point with comparative data,
such as how France does it compared to the U.S. The problem with saying socialized countries
are better by showing that they might live longer, and spend less money while cover
everyone in their country is heath is more then just going to the hospital for emergency treatment.
The fact is most of your heath is decided outside of the hospital, if a country eats
better, exercises better, and has less stress filled life’s, but happen to have poor emergency
health care that comes at a cheep price for everyone. Guess what they live longer. Ive read
numbers that say 30% of over all health is gene related, 30% more is ones over all life style,
diet exercises. The remaining 40% is then broken up into small groups that then covers
more commonly thought heath care, about 10% of that being emergency heath care, which
happens to be what The U.S.A. is best at, but then how could The U.S.A. not live as long
on average as the French, could this have to do with The U.S. working more then any other
country, eating worse then other countries. So when someone say socialized medicine would
save us money as a nation and save the poor, well maybe but that would involve a miracle,
because it would involve changing Americans eating habits, convince people to walk to work
instead of driving, and many other positive things that assumed when comparing America to
Europe. So people need to see that comparing our health care system the way France is comparing
apples to oranges. This is also just one aspect pointing out the flaws with socialized
medicine there is a huge cultural difference between how health care is seen. I think that
most people who want socialized medicine live in make believe land, because they refuse to
draw a line, as to what is possible and what is not, when the topic of what can be performed
crossed the board. The fact is The U.S. does things that other socialized country would
never dream of. Only a liberal dreamer sees it possible to have their cake and eat it to when
it comes to heath care, because it cant remain good and competitive while changing into a
system that flat lines competition innovation and every procedure possible. And when some
shows up to the hopital and says that can afford insurence I think they should be asked how
then they seem to pay their cell phone bill, and most likly their eight year old kids aswell.
Its all about priority, and those who complain cant and wont change their priorities.
Next Message by Slash is [182].
[120] Jenn: 30 hour shifts make doctors stupid. Socialized medicine is not stupid.
The US medical system is a perfect demonstration of the exploitation of workers. Bar’s
statement in [106] regarding the decrease in efficiency and importance of individuals is a
logical capitalist argument on the surface. However, are Americans really recieving better
medical care under this system?
The cold hard facts of the current US medical system (courtesy of Wikipedia): “Medical
residencies traditionally require lengthy hours of their trainees. Classically, 36-hour shifts
are separated by 12 hours of rest, during 100+ hour weeks. The American public, and
the medical education establishment, is increasingly recognizing that such long hours are
counter-productive, since sleep deprivation increases rates of medical errors. This was noted
in a landmark study on the effects of sleep deprivation and error rate in an intensive care
unit. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has limited
the number of work-hours to 80 hours weekly, overnight call frequency to no more than
one overnight every third day, 30 hour maximum straight shift, and 10 hours off between

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 355
shifts. While these limits are voluntary, adherence has been mandated for the purposes of
accreditation.
Critics of long residency hours trace the problem to the fact that resident physicians have
no alternatives to positions that are offered, meaning residents must accept all conditions of
employment, including very long work hours, and that they must also, in many cases, contend
with poor supervision. This process, they contend, reduces the competitive pressures
on hospitals, resulting in low salaries and long, unsafe work hours.”
Capitalism is engrained in future physicians from the moment they sign their $250,000
promissory note to pay for their medical school. Oftentimes, residents must take out additional
loans even after they have completed their schooling to supplement their training
salary. Some post-residency training is even unpaid. They begin their internship hundreds
of thousands of dollars in debt, forcing them to complete their training in the miserable training
system of the US hospitals, with no alternatives. After they complete their training, they
must make enough money to maintain their lifestyle as well as pay down their huge debts.
Although many physicians entered medical school with altruistic intentions, by the time they
have completed their training they are disillusioned with medicine and just downright tired.
This understandably leads to the desire to just make your money by seeing as many patients
as possible (as physicians are paid on a per-patient basis).
The socialization of medicine needs to start with the roots up.
Socialized medicine is not stupid.
Bar wrote in [106]:
“The cold hard facts about socialized medicine is that the quality of health
care drops, and the elimination of competition decreases efficiency and the
importance of the individual patients.”
I would like you to find evidence of this. How are you measuring quality of care? How
fast they can get them out of the hospital? Certainly not by how many people (percentagewise)
are effectively treated? Using that yard-stick, your argument wouldn’t hold up. Also,
competition is not a characteristic of medicine. The industry is very fragmented and is
shaped by the relations of physician groups and insurance organizations. It’s not like doctors
undercut each other to draw more patients to their practice.
I like to point out that countries with socialized programs have a much healthier populace
than that of the United States, and as such don’t need as many serious procedures, such as
surgery. These citizens invest more time and effort in preventative care, and don’t wait for
their conditions to augment themselves. This very healthy behavior wouldn’t be possible if
not for the virtually unlimited access to health care extended to the population.
Why do we lead the world in healthcare? Is it possibly because, due to our ailing health,
we have the highest demand for these very services?
Next Message by Jenn is [174].
[123] Bar: Socialized medicine is stupid after all. To address the measuring of the
quality of care issue under socialized medicine, here is a quote from Wikipedia (whatever

356 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
that’s worth) “One of the major complaints about the Canadian health care system is waiting
times, whether for a specialist, major elective surgery, such as hip replacement, or specialized
treatments, such as radiation for breast cancer. Studies by the Commonwealth Fund
found that 24% of Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 12% in the
U.S.; 57% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 23% in the U.S.”
“In a 2003 survey of hospital administrators conducted in Canada, the U.S., and three
other countries, 21% of Canadian hospital administrators, but less than 1% of American administrators,
said that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer
on a 50-year-old woman; 50% of Canadian administrators versus none of their American
counterparts said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine
hip replacement surgery.”
“Some of the extra money spent in the United States goes to doctors, nurses, and other
medical professionals, all of whom receive higher compensation than their counterparts
north of the border. According to health data collected by the OECD, average income for
physicians in the United States in 1996 was nearly twice that for physicians in Canada.”
Why would a good doctor work in Canada when he could get paid twice as much south of
the border?
“The United States spends more on technology than Canada. The study Medical Imaging
in Canada, 2004[64] reported that in 2004, Canada had 4.6 MRI scanners per million
population while the U.S. had 19.5 per million. Canada’s 10.3 CT scanners per million also
ranked behind the U.S., which had 29.5 per million.[65] The study did not attempt to assess
whether the difference in the number of MRI and CT scanners had any effect on the medical
outcomes.”
For more info on the US vs. Canadian Health Care Systems and the same place I got
these quotes go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian and American health care systems compared
I found both FacistFrank and Slash made poignant observations about the Health care
system: FacistFrank makes an excellent point about the system when he says,
“The insurance companies are charging far beyond the actual costs (including
R&D) of health care. Don’t get me wrong, there is such thing as fair
healthy profit that harnesses good incentive, then there is just plain robbery
profit. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies do this not to cover costs
but because they are an oligopoly that also establishes barriers to entry.”
That’s exactly what they do, I completely agree with his analysis. Where I disagree with
him, is I think that these profits are necessary for risk aversion. They make sick ridiculous
profits off of their drugs through the monopolies that they hold, or as he says “robbery
profits.” But these profits are necessary because the risk that a pharmaceutical company
takes to develop a new drug is unbelievable. After investing billions of dollars to develop
a new drug many times the drug stays in the testing stages of the FDA for years, and many
times the drug is not approved; after spending billions on a drug, it is not approved! Ive

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 357
seen some smaller pharma companies stock price drop as much as 80% after a drug has been
denied. Those profits are a necessary evil for risk-aversion.
When Slash talks about relativity of a countries health to explain life expectancy and
other health comparisons he hit the nail on the head. “Super sized anyone” Americans eat
like crap, that’s the sad truth and this causes many of the problems of health care in our
countrie, it may even be one of the causes of rising health costs. Eating right and exercise
would solve many many problems in America, but what does that have to do with the health
care system? its a bad cultural aspect of our society, nothing to do with the hierarchy of the
medical system. Excellent point
Message [123] referenced by [124]. Next Message by Bar is [207].
[124] FacistFrank: This is pretty interesting, the fact from [123] that the pharmaceuticals
have to have a lot of money to cover costs if their drug is rejected. But then this brings up
some other questions, are the billions in profits there to back up drugs that fail, or is that a
cost that has already been figured into expenses, before pure leftover profit is determined?
If I would have to make an assumption I would say that the cost needed for failed drugs
is already included in standard R&D costs because profit is the leftover money after all
costs have been covered. If they are dipping into profits (which I doubt) to cover expenses
for failed drugs and technologies, then perhaps the high costs they pass to consumers is
warranted. If not then I think it is robbery.
Next Message by FacistFrank is [158].
[125] Hans: Focus the Nation Events. This week you will be able to attend several
environmental events on the U of U campus, during a week of co-ordinated nationwide
“focus the nation” activities.
One of the topics of Econ 5080 is to understand the glue which holds societies together.
Climate change is here an interesting experiment: what happens to the “social fabric” in a
prolonged disaster, when infrastructure which we all rely on and which we take for granted
is destroyed, or when there is not enough food or water to go around?
A sober look at these issues can be found in the following 20-page pdf:
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing papers/pdf/uncertainfuture
Here is an excerpt about civil unrest:
Firstly, most analysts see the threat to national security for developed countries
as coming from the outside, from massive immigration. But there are
other security concerns that governments should take into account in relation
to their own populations. For example, if responses to the aftermath
of natural disasters are inadequate, then people may begin to lose confidence
in the government’s ability to protect them. At the same time, there
will undoubtedly be resistance to some of the very measures that will be
necessary to protect and provide for people. This may create resentment
towards the government and possibly lead to a breakdown in trust between
the police and general public if draconian measures need to be enforced;
particularly if the police and security services are seen to be primarily protecting
the interests of the political and financial elites within society. For

358 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
others, the government will not be going far enough, and a rise in protests
aimed at governments over inadequate policy changes or aimed at corporations
over environmental damage can probably be expected. While social
and environmental movements have a long history of peaceful protest and
non-violent direct action, on the fringes of such movements there are always
those who will resort to violence and sabotage. In the extreme, there
may even be a rise in groups using terrorist tactics to further their otherwise
legitimate agendas. In the US, the FBI has observed worrying signs of an
escalation in violent rhetoric and tactics amongst a small minority of environmental
extremists, and they currently consider ‘eco-terrorism’ to be one
of the most serious domestic terrorism threats.
Terrorism is not the only alternative if those in power do not voluntarily do the right thing.
Another possibility would be that the grassroots organize and by their sheer numbers force
those in power to implement effective and fair policies.
Here is a calendar of all the focus the nation events:
http://www.sustainability.utah.edu/newsandevents/ftncalendar.htm
Here is another calendar (of which I am the maintainer):
http://gaia.econ.utah.edu/calendar
Hans.
Next Message by Hans is [142].
[126] CousinIt: Separation of Church and State? I am responding to Sparky’s [114]
discussion post on the role of religion in American politics. I do have an opinion on this
topic. It is an opinion that I know will not be very pallatable to some folks. I think
that the notion of the necessity of a separation between church and state was written into
the US constitution to promote the idea that people should be able to believe in whatever
super/extra/quasi-universal humanoid (anthropomorphized) diety or personal-favorite
mythological variety-act that they choose but that this belief should be kept to themselves
and not enter into the realities of governing and providing stewardship of the nation, its
resources, and its people in general.
Frankly, I am baffled by the fact that we, here in the twenty-first century, are still arguing
about this stuff. We should be laughing these folks who want some kind of dark-ages
theocracy right out of town on a rail, right now, thank you, goodnight!! Alas, we choose to
take them seriously and encourage their continuous babbling. You would think we’d have
become bored to tears by it all, by now!
But, in order to understand the tragi-comic ridiculousness of this entire debate, I will
need to lay some groundwork by making some very specific comments and clarifying some
definitions.
Mythologies are important. We need myths. Myths are the stories that we tell each other
and that we recite to ourselves that act as guides through the trials and tribulations, as well
as through the joys and achievements that we experience in our lives. It is through myth

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 359
that we are able to give some sense of continuity to our personal and collective histories
(and herstories) and through which we find appreciation for ourselves, for others, and for
our world (as families, nations, cults, covens, girl-scout troops, members of a rock n’ roll
band, academics, hairdressers, feminists, cross-dressers, etc.).
Myths are meant to be taken as metaphors for the experiences of everyday life and as
metaphors for personal and social growth toward some imagined future state of perfection (I
will save my critique of the notion of perfection for another time). Myths are not meant to be
taken and acted upon literally. Myths are not meant to represent the world or human experience
in any one-to-one relationship of identity or correspondence, but are merely very broad
generalizations about common human experiences that are always and everywhere subject
to interpretation (...herein lies a clue to their useful uselessness in running governments).
Religions are mythologies. They are collections of very nice stories that are told and retold
for the purpose of helping individuals in a community or a society get through their lives
by attributing meaning and purpose to lives that might otherwise seem unbearably meaningless
and scary (at least to the more simple and unimaginative amongst us who are not inclined
or have the talent to make-up our own personal myths). By the same token, religions
are very useful if you are someone or a group of someones who wants to get another subordinate
group of people to behave in predictably specific ways. We were supposed to have
arrived at and overcome this impass of fantasy and superstition with “The Enlightenment”
which supposedly began several hundred years ago, by some accounts.
This is not to say that myths aren’t extremely powerful. The myths underlying Nazism,
Radical Islamism, Manifest Destiny, The ‘Invisible Hand’ of the ‘Free Market’, Project
for the New American Century, etc., are all proofs of the power of myth. In fact, these
movements are fine examples of “myths gone wild!!!” [...and you can probably catch some
of these myhtologies “going ape-sh*t” on video-disk at the Marriott Library!!! ;) ] I think
that the provision for a separation of church and state was penned with the knowledge that, if
left untended, myths characteristically tend to get out of control before anyone even knows
they’ve sneaked-out of the bedroom window.
Finally, ....my opinion? I really don’t care what kind of superheroes and fantasy-figures
you have operating in your over-active imagination about what gets to count as ‘real’ in
your own day-dreams about “eternal-this” and “devilish-that”. You are free to indulge in
whatever fantasy-mythologies that you want to, on your own time, in your own mind and
with others who enjoy the same kind of ‘dungeons and dragons’ gaming night-out-withthe-boys
that you do. I could really care less. But, please do not ask or expect me to be
happy and coalescent when you want to bring those fantasies and selective mythologies to
bear (on real-world problems of the everyday material lives and needs of everyday common
people) within the government chambers of my democracy. You will only prove to me how
unreal and fantasy-laden is your conception of what a democratic government should really
be about in THIS world, at THIS time.
We should “get-over” ourselves and our myths (this IS the twenty-first century, after all,
and just look where these out-dated mythologies have gotten us). We could, rather, get on
with the problems of making the world a better place for ALL OF US (all personal fantasies

360 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
aside) while at the same time providing for a better life for those who are to follow by doing
the hard yet honorable work of delaying our inevitable extinction as best we can (with at
least the mythological hope that it is not already too late)..
Perhaps this will require the invention of new more compelling mythologies to describe
and make apprehensible the meaninglessness that is unfolding before us at the moment?
Message [126] referenced by [127] and [128]. Next Message by CousinIt is [131].
[127] PrivateProperty: Amen to [126].
Hans: Amen is an interesting choice of words for agreeing to an atheist rant. I assume you made this joke consciously.
Next Message by PrivateProperty is [129].
[128] Brandon: Separation of Church and State - kinda... In response to Sparky’s
[114] question surrounding the role of religion in American politics, I believe in the ideology
surrounding the creation of separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution; that being
that it is illegal for the U.S. government to create a national church and that the laws of said
church will influence or dictate U.S. law or legislation.
Now, does this mean that we have a true separation of church and state in the legal sense?
Yes. There does not exist a national church or religious organization that creates law, legislation,
or collects taxes. However, because the nation was founded by members of the
Christian faith, and even with the vast majority of practicing religions in this country, the
American population is still predominately Christian. It is only natural, in such an enviornment,
that politicians and elected officials will base their platforms and proposed legislation
around the predominate societal view of ethics and morales. Where do these ethics and
morales stem from? The Christian faith. Not soley the Christian faith (that would be an
oversimplification) but rather what our society has rationally accepted as the societal norm
of human behavior. Example: I don’t think there is anyone here (except maybe a follower of
Nietzche) who would argue for the legalization of taking a human life. (Disclaimer: I am not
trying to make an insinuation about the legality of abortion with this argument; that issue is,
or at least should be, a debate of science surrounding the definition of a fetus as a human life,
so let’s not even go there.) Rational people, despite their religions background will agree
beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a legalization would be a detriment to society. Sure,
this ideology is rooted in theological beliefs, however it is a universally accepted notion of
any civilized society.
Sparky asks in [114]:
“In a society where the will of the people is ideally to be followed, would
religion undoubtedly be played into the government and its decisions?”
It is only natural that a society will follow and elect leaders who support the general
ideals, morales, and ethics of the majority of the people. I don’t disagree that it IS ridiculous
that we still debate over a politicians personal views on religion. If a Muslim is elected
president tomorrow, the law prohibits him from mandating that U.S. law must adhere to
the Quran. A Hindu president will be powerless in mandating that all public schools must
convert children to Hinduism and implement strict participation in Deepavali. An Atheistic

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 361
president would be completely unable to close churches or prevent people from practicing
their faith.
The national issues that are impacted most by religion are social dilemmas that have no
written law but conflict with the theological standard, i.e., gay-marriage. This is an issue that
the Christian-right are fighting, there is no written law forbidding it, and so they will vote
for a president who will prevent this from becoming a legal form of marriage. Many here
will argue that it is not right for us to ban such a marriage, however, in a democratic system
let us not forget that the will of the people is what should be law. The elected officials are
representatives, voices, of the people. If the people do not support a form of legislation they
will elect someone who shares their views. So sure, religion is influencing politics; more so
in the sense that religion influences the people, the people then influence politics.
A Baptist minister being elected president will not further bolster U.S. legislation into
adopting more “Christian” laws, however, it gives the majority of the public the security
blanket that their beliefs and way of life will not be infringed on. Perhaps I’m preaching
to the choir here, but I think this is an important issue that the U.S. people should take a
step back and think about. The same is true for other countries. I challenge anyone to find a
nation where the religion or ‘mythologies’, as CousinIt in [126] mentions, does not influence
their politics. In [126] CousinIt refers to mythologies as:
“collections of very nice stories that are told and retold for the purpose of
helping individuals in a community or a society get through their lives by
attributing meaning and purpose to lives that might otherwise seem unbearably
meaningless and scary (at least to the more simple and unimaginative
amongst us who are not inclined or have the talent to make-up our own
personal myths)”
He/she also states:
“The myths underlying Nazism, Radical Islamism, Manifest Destiny, The
‘Invisible Hand’ of the ‘Free Market’, Project for the New American Century,
etc., are all proofs of the power of myth.”
CousinIt left out two myths (if we are to refer to political ideologies as such) and that is
socialism and communism. I understand the context of myths, in which he is speaking; that
these are not myths as in falsehoods but rather as fantastic ideas, stories, etc. CousinIt is
right, myths do fuel societies and no matter what form of governmental agency you install,
the general agreement on the myth that fuels said society will impact government.
Message [128] referenced by [131] and [134]. Next Message by Brandon is [133].
[130] Srichardson: Separation of Church and State. After reading Sparky’s insights
of separation of church and state all I could think about was how brave the posting was,
especially in a class where most of the people are Utah born. Growing up in Utah my whole
life and not being religious has definitely been a learning experience. I have had many of the
same thoughts that Sparky brings up but I quickly learned as a very shy person that it was
just better for me to keep it to myself if I did not want to be in a very heated argument.

362 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
As issues of the separation of church and state were brought up over and over again it
seemed as though my peers of a rural Utah town became more and more closed minded and
when debates such as “under god” being taken out of the pledge or the ten commandments
not being displayed in courthouses you were just waiting for the same individuals to get
very heated and often make comments that where made to be sharp towards those that don’t
believe exactly as they did.
I think that people are very protective of their religious beliefs and do not like them
questioned, and they see these fights of separation of church and state as being a question
that their religion is the “right” religion. I can in a way understand being very protective of
your religion and beliefs, however I begin to have a problem when people have the notion
that their religion is the one and only “right” way. Separation of Church and State is in
the constitution so that all people can make their own choices when it comes to religion, it
protects everyone, if you are Catholic, Christian, Mormon, Jewish and even yes those that
are atheist!
So thank you Sparky for putting that posting out there and saying things that i have often
thought but just never said!
Next Message by Srichardson is [171].
[131] CousinIt: Church and State; Capitalism and Democracy; Apples and Oranges?
Brandon [128] forces me to make an important distinction. Capitalism, socialism and communism
are terms that denote particular types of economic systems, that is, they are alternative
economic systems, not mythologies, per se, and there are selective mythologies
underlying all of these (remember, mythologies are neccesary, powerful, and valuable. The
question really is just a matter of which mythologies are chosen to be relevant and positive
for a particular people, situated as they are in time and place).
Brandon seems to imply that America as a whole believes in and practices (or should
believe in and practice, as a whole) according to a set of Christian values that are widely
recognized as “American” values. That being said, the question arises, Do the “Christian
values” underlying right-wing American morals and politics really reflect the teachings of
Christ? If they do, then the following statements must be true...
Christ teaches hatred and contempt of homosexuals, sinners, non-Christians, poor people
on welfare, people with mental illnesses, people who lack moral judgement, and anyone
who doesn’t want a purely “Christian” capitalist world to live in.
Christ values the labor and rights of white male citizens more than the labor and rights of
immigrants, women, racial minorites, poor people, and gay/lesbians.
Christ teaches that some people deserve more respect, help, and care than others deserve
and that poor people are poor because they are lazy and immoral.
Christ teaches that homosexuals don’t deserve the right to have families, raise children,
or take care of their family’s private interests when it comes to medical issues, death and
dying issues, property issues, etc.
Christ teaches that women do not have the right to decide for themselves what they want
to do with their own bodies.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 363
Christ supports exploitation of poor and working-class people through institutionalized
wage-slavery, corporate welfare, tax breaks and entitlements for the rich.
Christ teaches that economic growth and the amassing of great wealth at the expense of
those less fortunate than oneself are elements of the correct focus of a good life.
Christ teaches that violence and threat of violence is an acceptable way to solve conflicts,
gain dominance over others, and as a way of taking and possessing material resources even
when others are already sitting on top of said resources, especially if it means controlling
the flow of petroleum and its profits.
Christ supports the undermining and overthrow of any and all governments that do not
support and participate ‘properly’ in accord with American capitalistic enterprises and interests.
Christ teaches “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” and supports the seeking of revenge
on those that have wronged you.
Christ teaches that those who do not believe as Christians do should be forced by law to
at least behave as Christians do.
Christ believes that whatever is good for large transnational businesses and corporate
private interests should be the invisible basis of a system of government that protects the
privileges of the few over the rights and needs of the many.
etc., etc., etc.,
I don’t think anyone would agree that these are representative of “what Jesus would do.”
However, these are the values and outcomes that some folks support in the name of a Christian
ethic in American politics.
On the contrary, my intuition is that Christ was/would be (in his ideology and attitudes toward
humanity, human right to the products of ones labor, and mutual aid to ones comrades)
something much more similar to a socialist/communist/humanitarian/anarchist....
If he really did come back to save us all again, he would probably want to include homosexuals,
immigrants, prostitutes, poor people, loonies, sex-offenders, murderers, and drug
addicts.
We probably wouldn’t recognize him and procede to nail him up for a second time!
Message [131] referenced by [133] and [134]. Next Message by CousinIt is [135].
[133] Brandon: RE: Church and State; Capitalism and Democracy; Apples and Oranges?
I was interested in CousinIt’s response in [131], at first I was curious where his/her
semi-poetic representation of “Christ’s teachings”. I realize that CousinIt was pointing out
the paradox in the Christian faith. Christ never once expresses alienation of fellow humans,
nor condones anyone for their lifestyle. And yet, modern Christian faith does this on a daily
basis. Not only Christian, but many theistic religions. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism,
etc. I think it is unfair for us to say that every religious person acts in this way, but i
think it is safe to say, a large portion.
I must make a response to CousinIt, if I may, simply as a form of correction. I was not
implying that America “as a whole” believes and practices according to a set of Christian

364 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
values. Far from it. However, there is no argument that the majority of the population
claims that they are Christian. It is estimated that in 2001 76.5 percent of the US population
identified themselves with some form or denomination of the Christian faith Source:
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research briefs/aris/key findings.htm.
But this does not mean that the whole country adheres to these religious standards. With
nearly 25 percent not associating with the Christian faith, I believe it has created a unique
mixture of ideas and relationships. And, while CousinIt, was somewhat distraught by, what
i can only described as, a lack of social progress towards a sensitized nation without the
forward presence of religion; I find it interesting the way in which our society has progressed
in the tolerance and acceptance of external thoughts and ideas. Granted, this tolerance has
come at a slow rate and continues to move slowly, but that is as with any form of evolution.
We cannot expect some cataclysmic event to all of a sudden completely alter the minds and
opinions of humans. Yet, we can recognize the forward progress. 50 years ago, an Atheist
would have had a pretty hard time becomming a public figure without being associated with
the Communist Party. 100 years ago a gay couple would never have been able to walk down
the streets of even San Fransisco, hand-in-hand and showing each other intimate affection.
I’m not saying this country has evolved to a level of godlike tolerance and we are supreme
to our ancestors’ ideals, but what I am saying is we have progresed and continue to, but
the change is very slow. I think generalities and stereotypes about groups fuel the urge to
not progress. This comes from both sides of the political spectrum. Right-wing conservatives
attack the left and their support for special interest groups, whereas the left attacks the
right on their contituents who support Christian family values. When attacked, or when one
group feels that their interests are threatened externally, it is only normal for that group to
strengthen its arguments and prevent the antithesis from occuring. example: A democrat is
elected who supports gay-marriage (i apologize for constantly using this example). A majority
(that is not to say ‘all’) of Christians, who generally support the republicans, will feel the
‘sanctity of marriage’ threatened in this country. In response they will call upon their elected
representatives to do everything in their power to block a legalization of gay-marriage. In
response to the that, the gay community and its supporters will call the republicans and conservatives
bigots, hateful, etc etc etc, simply because two parties cannot agree on a single
issue.
Ok, i’ve preached too long, and to be honest I feel that it isn’t going anywhere. I just want
to state that while I do not wholly agree with CousinIt’s perspective on how society should
void of religious groups, I do agree with his arguments about the naive nature of these
groups. How modern groups act almost in a complete opposite manner as their prophets,
messiahs, or just really righteous dudes did. The first step to overcoming these changes
would be for these groups to look internally at their own faults and rectifying these selfdilemmas
before addressing the faults of others.
Thank you for coming, i’ll be here next Sunday same time. (Sorry I had to laugh at myself
for the rest of you...my sermon went a little long)
Message [133] referenced by [135]. Next Message by Brandon is [383].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 365
[134] PrivateProperty: Re: Church and State; Capitalism and Democracy; Apples
and Oranges? CousinIt, I agree with you wholeheartedly that Jesus’ teachings are not
evident in the way our economy functions [131]. Not that this really matters; I myself
am not Christian. However, what I think Brandon is trying to say [128] is that America
simply comes from a Christian tradition, which is true. Going back to the beginnings of
America, many of the colonists came for religious freedom, as their particular Christian sect
was being persecuted back home. At the same time, these colonists were also motivated
by economic reasons, for the opportunity to own their own land and become independent
economic agents. The point of all of this is that despite any formal clause in the constitution
that calls for the seperation of church and state, the truth is that economy and religion (and
politics) were entwined from the foundings of America, and inevitably there is still a remnant
of that influence today.
Now, as for actually saying that America should be run according to a Christian tradition,
that is completely bogus. I would have nothing but disrespect for anyone in a place of
influence that lets their religion infiltrate their decision-making. Unfortunately, there are
individuals in our society that can’t seem to understand the importance of this seperation.
Next Message by PrivateProperty is [198].
[135] CousinIt: Church and State and Capitalism. Just as a clarification.... democratic
practice, by some accounts, should be something with an aim that includes and seeks to accommodate
all people, not just the majority (not just the most wealthy, or most privileged).
Yes, the majority must be protected from the minority, but, the minority must also be protected
from being dictated to by the majority, as well....a million people (or 400 million)
CAN be wrong. It all depends on who “the people” are..WHICH people you are willing
to include.....democracy in America, as well as in ancient Athens, has always been limited
to those in the privileged class. When the founding fathers said, “We the people...”, they
probably meant “We, the people here in this room....” Whether this is the case or not doesn’t
really matter. What does is that we have the surviving and developing notion that people can
rule themselves by being the government that they are governed by.
As we have learned in this class, contradictions are an opportunity to look deeper to unearth
the underlying structure of the contradiction as well as into the ideologies that depend
on and make it possible to ignore the contradiction. Democracy is a process, not a thing or a
product. It is ongoing and dynamic...always changing and always under contention. We are
still working it out, as Brandon [133] properly points out.
Capitalism is not democracy. They are not the same thing. One of the contradictions in
American popular ideology is that democracy is dependent on capitalism as its economic
system...the notion that they are one and the same thing. However, in a truly democratic
system, we could vote capitalism out and install any alternative economy. Also, any system
that has as its elements tarriffs, taxes, and contraband, by definition IS NOT ‘free-enterprise.’
Capitalism is no less ‘centrally planned’ than is socialism. The difference is, in capitalism
the capitalist class elites (those who own the means of production) are the ones doing the
central planning, rather than the people who are their own government who all own the
means of production equally for the good of all rather than for the profits of the few.

366 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
This conflation of capitalism and democracy creates a whole chain of contradictions that
cause the kinds of distortions that a “Christian ethic” like the right-wing American variety
exemplifies. Another such case exists in the academy that separates political economy into
economic and political science as discreet disciplines. What this effectively does is prevent
us from addressing the contradictions that exist in the conflation of capitalism with democracy.
The capitalism stuff is studied in economics departments and the political stuff is studied
in political science departments, as if the two are completely unrelated. This way the
contradiction is ignored, a ‘neccessary’ connection or conflation is uncritically presumed,
much the same way as homophobia and “Christ’s teachings” are uncritically accepted as belonging
together under the umbrella of “Christian values.” While the contradiction is clear to
a few of us, it is invisible to a large majority. Does this mean that the contradiction doesn’t
exist?
By some accounts, capitalism and democracy are completely diametrically antithetical.
This brings up a very important set of questions;
How can there be an inclusive participatory democracy in a system where money (material
wealth, ownership of the means of production by an elite few) gets to determine what
gets priority in political discussions and legislation? (By some accounts, some sort of rough
economic equality within a particular range is the prerequisite for a healthy inclusive democracy).
Into this discussion we might consider bringing such issues like media ownership and
control as well as privileged access to the socio-economic infrastructure and financial institutions
of a society. If some automatically get privileged access by being born into the right
family, how democratic is this, really? (It is important to note that notions of freedom and
equality co-evolved with slavery and racism. If you preach equality, yet some people in a
particular category are discriminated against unfairly, you have to come up with something
like racial/class/gender/religious/etc, ‘innate’ ’inferiority’ in order to explain why some folks
are not as ‘equal’ as others.)
People often presume that capitalism is a perfect system and then require that socialism
(or any other alternative) be demonstrated as being ‘more perfect’ than capitalism, without
having ever had the equal benefit of even trying it out! (If you think capitalism is perfect,
consider that it has consistently failed to produce the things it promises....wealth, security,
peace, and happiness for all...)
I’ll save a critique of imagined notions of plausible perfection, while leaving the reader
with this little tid-bit;
“Man is the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal inventor of the
negative (or moralized by the negative) separated from his natural condition by instruments
of his own making goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order) and
rotten with perfection.” (Kenneth Burke, from “Language as Symbolic Action.”)
“Religion is the opiate of the masses” (Marx? Engels? Maybe someone can provide me
with this reference?)
Message [135] referenced by [137]. Next Message by CousinIt is [149].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 367
[137] Mitternacht: Myth of the rational voter. There have been some interesting emails
going back and forth lately on politics so I figured that I would get in on the action. CousinIt
[135] mentioned in a recent posting that a million or 400 million people can be wrong. This
reminded me of an interview that I heard recently on NPR which related to the masses often
being wrong when it comes to voting. An author and economist by the name of Bryan
Kaplan was promoting his new book ‘The Myth of the Rational Voter - Why Democracies
Choose Bad Policies’. I haven’t had a chance to read the book yet, but I’m quite intrigued
by the argument that Mr. Caplan presents - most voters are uninformed and they continually
elect politicians who seem to share (or pretend to share) the same irrational beliefs and
biases, resulting in bad policies winning out over and over by popular demand. He says that
he doesn’t fear that politicians won’t carry out the will of the people, instead he fears that
they will. His arguments focus more on economic aspects, but translate well to a broader
picture. Here’s a link to the interview if anyone is interested:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18176724
Going back to the topic of religion and politics - I think that we’d be surprised to find out
where several so-called religious politicians beliefs really lie. Call me a cynic, but I believe
that most politicians are insincere and make no qualms about publicly adopting beliefs and
ideals contrary to their own to take advantage of commonly held beliefs of the masses, be
they religious or otherwise.
CousinIt - thanks to Wikipedia I was able to track down the reference for the Marx quote.
The quote comes Marx’s ’Critique to Hegel’s Philosophy of Right’. Here’s the quote in its
entire context (Hans may take exception to the translation):
“Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not
yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being
squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society
produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an
inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium,
its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its
solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic
realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality.
The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose
spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a
protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a
heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opiate of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their
real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on
them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in
embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”
Next Message by Mitternacht is [191].

368 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
[138] Kevin: The things you learn from fast food. So I thought this was interesting.
Yesterday we went to Chick-fil-A down and my fiancé got a kids meal. In the kids meal was
a little American history flip chart. On the George Washington card it read:
“During Washington’s administration, he put together the first presidential
cabinet and set the groundwork for America’s early foreign policy by counseling
that the nation should stay out of international affairs as much as
possible.”
I don’t know whether the statement is true or not, but it made me start to wonder how
different things would be if we had followed this counsel. It would seem obvious to me that
we wouldn’t be in Iraq or many of the other international conflict zones, but it makes me
wonder whether or not that would have actually worked to our advantage. If we had always
“stay[ed] out of international affairs” what kind of an economic position would we be in
now? Is Washington’s counsel sound advice?
Message [138] referenced by [140]. Next Message by Kevin is [238].
[139] Alex: A proper understanding of the realities of separation and specialization of
labor require more than just an education can provide. To clarify I would like to share an
example. A well educated friend of mine once stated “I don’t know why I need a college
degree to do my job, it really is quite simple.” He went on to quip “I really believe that
90% of the people can do 90% of the jobs.” He was not a Marxist and would certainly not
admit to anything that sounded Marxist purposefully. Rather my friend had come to the sad
realization that a job, no matter how tough, is usually not nearly as tough as the specialization
process.
A doctor may struggle with their first few years in the profession. However, they eventually
get their footing and usually only face new challanges as they step outside their knowledge
level, something not required unless one chooses to do so. The point being, the more
specialized we become the more we realize we probably did not need all the specialization.
Granted, there are exceptions to every rule and some professions genuinely require further
specialization to push forward the realms of their respective fields.
Hans [64] relays that computer software has become a very interesting field to observe
because of certain networks that prove more valuable than just one specialized laborer. When
one laborer does all the work certain problems arise. First, one person does not have the
creative genius as several people. Second, when one person is working on one project they
take more time and are not as effective as several can be. Third, the specializing laborer loses
out on what else he could be doing. By specializing, the laborer has limited his capacity and
potential. If he can take part in many different projects the laborer can be far more effective.
As labor becomes separated the production line becomes more effecient. Separation of
labor is not limited to the production line or factories. Separation of labor is apparent in
government, white collar work, etc. I found in my first few “specialized” jobs that even
though I had a degree I was still a cog in a machine. This was very difficult to handle. I
wasn’t sure why my job required a degreee, and my work wasn’t more difficult than anyone
elses. But the separation had many social and economic consequences. First, with my title I
was given superiority over others. Second, I was paid more than those doing “trivial” jobs. I

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 369
didn’t see how my having a degree made me any more qualified. I realized the separation of
labor was little more than a corporate way of keeping tabs on employees. Money and social
ranking were there to make me believe my specialization was important. However, I quickly
realized that these items were meant to keep me in place in the company.
In specific situations a person could work for years to obtain a title such as “Vice-
President” and gain some authority within the company. But the laborer loses out on the
more important social and economic factors that come from shared labor. When all work
together not only is more respect given to the laborer but a better product also emerges.
Message [139] referenced by [157]. Next Message by Alex is [141].
[140] Spawnblade: Where would we be without a interactive foreign policy? The
subject was brought up in Kevin’s post regarding a simple comment via a kids meal history
chart in [138] . He questioned where we would be if we had heeded Washington’s advice to
keep to ourselves and stay out of foreign politics. This policy is referred to as Isolationism.
We can be assured that if we were still isolationists, we would not be in Iraq right now.
I believe the main question would be: Would Germany have won World War I? If not,
what would the peace treaties have been like without America’s intervention at Versailles? In
this respect, would the economically devastated countries of Europe, turned to Communism
with our lack of foreign aid? If Germany lost the first war, would they have proceeded to lose
the second as well, in which the turning point was America’s intervention? If not, would they
have then developed the atomic bomb before us? Or would that be our only shield against
impending invasion from both Germany/Europe, and Japan/Asia? Would communism even
exist, with the extreme dislike the Nazis held for it?
I believe we may have fought in a War against Japan, however without the aid we gave
Great Britain, they may not have lasted that long, meaning the Soviets would have had the
full war on their front subsequently. In these scenarios, how much of a difference did our
foreign policy make? Has it preserved the world we desire and wish to see thrive? If we had
followed Washington’s advice (Which in fact is advice he did clearly state. I’m surprised it
was found in a happy meal. Hooray for fast food?) we may have been better off for a time,
but with the emerging/emerged global economy, could that truly have lasted?
Taking these into account, I believe isolationism is not in a country’s best interests. Perhaps
for a smaller country, or a different time period, it may be ideal. Washington never
foresaw the colonies becoming the superpower. Otherwise I believe he may have seen a
different responsibility entrusted to our government. We are protecting ourselves better than
we could hope by intervening elsewhere, despite the harm we are bound to endure in the
process.
Interesting tidbit though, I like its application to both previous economic policies, as well
as current. Not counting the military policies it entails. Thanks for bringing it up. :-)
Message [140] referenced by [141]. Next Message by Spawnblade is [154].
[157] Papageorgio: specialization? As I read Alex post [139] about specialization I
found I disagreed or found some points to further look upon regarding specialization. As
we look at someone who specializes in a certain subject, job, sport, etc. They are able
to compete at a far higher level in most cases than someone who does not specialize but

370 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
tries to do all at once. Someone who specializes in making a certain commodity is able to
make more of that commodity as we know from micro and macro econ classes, rather than
someone who tries to make many commodities. Specialization can help us to focus on one
task and become great at it, rather than medium in many. Some restrictions such as time,
body type, genes, etc play a role in what we can do or have time for as well.
In regard to jobs and specialization at times I wonder if it would benefit us if we lived
in a society in which we were geared toward one thing, one subject, or placed in a school
to get us ready for a job we will do. Instead of being able to choose anything, even things
we know little about and not succeeding. So that we were taught what we would do for our
living from a young age and by the time we left school we would know exactly how to do it
and would be able to not really have a choice of what to do but be great at it and everyone
would have there own role or job. This to us as Americans seems odd and freedom taking
but can be a close reality to some communist countries.
Next Message by Papageorgio is [179].
[159] Paul: Social Medicine. After reading the other posts regarding Socialized Medicine
I would like to offer my opinion on the subject. I believe that the United States could benefit
from providing some sort of socialized medicine. Some sources state that currently in the
United States there are 45 million people without health insurance. By adopting socialized
medicine all of these people would now be able to receive treatment. Another advantage
would be that the price of medications would decrease immensely. This would make it
much easier for people to afford the medications that they need. With socialized medicine
people are more likely to go and get regular check ups and therefore make it easier to catch
illnesses before they get worse. It is easier and much cheaper to treat most illnesses in the
early stages so this would help cut the cost overall. Countries with social medicine that offer
universal health care are likely to spend less on countries which do not. Another economic
benefit can be found in the fact that if the nation as a whole is healthier they are bound to be
more productive.
Message [159] referenced by [162]. Next Message by Paul is [186].
[162] Inter: Social Medicine. The most important aspect about establishing a form of
socialized medicine is the possible impact it can have on the class gap in America. The
fact that 45 million people (as referenced in [159] by Paul) do not have coverage can coexist
with the many who have optional surgeries, illustrates the class antagonism quite well.
By providing coverage for all, even at the expense of a higher tax, the distribution of resource/choice
becomes more equitable. The importance of reducing the class gap is a matter
of importance to the nation, after all this country operates because of the middle class.
Next Message by Inter is [270].
[163] Averil: Social Medicine. After reading the other posts centering around Socialized
Medicine I would like to comment on the topic. Socialized medicine is a rather important
topic, especially in light of the upcoming Presidential election and the subsequent promises
made. The tried and tested argument against socialized medicine is that of poorer care.
Those who argue for free market medicine assert that competition is an essential factor that
increases the quality of care, America has better doctors and better health care because we
don’t have socialized medicine. If this holds true, socialized medicine becomes a case expensive
but superior health care for those who can afford it against lesser quality health care

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 371
for all. When viewed through this lens, morality often comes into play. John Stuart Mill
believed in the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, and would thusly be in support
of socialized medicine. When viewed in purely economic terms, the equation becomes
slightly trickier. I agree with Paul in saying that socialized care would decrease the overall
costs for care and medicine alike. This might lead to some unforeseen consequences; drug
companies make much of their profits off of patents of their drugs and there is a good chance
their profits would be reduced. If costs of medicine were reduced due to socialized medicine
there is a chance that the profit the company once gleaned would be cut, this might lead to
decreased incentive to do new research on new drugs. However, it is entirely conceivable
that the federal government might make up for these reduced profits with subsidies to the
drug companies. Unfortunately, this would just increase the cost of socialized medicine in
general to the government and subsequently put a strain on the economy.
Next Message by Averil is [167].
[178] Scott: Free money! President Bush recently said,“When you’ve got more money
in your pockets to save, spend or invest, this causes the economy to grow,” There is a new
congressional bill that if passed will put up to $600 dollars into the pockets of every tax
paying citizen. Is this the answer America is looking for to solve our economic problems? I
say yes. I agree with President Bush, that by giving this money tax payers it will immediatley
boost the economy. I am already thinking of things Im going to buy with the money, and Im
positive all Americans will feel great spending $600 from congress.
Message [178] referenced by [180] and [198]. Next Message by Scott is [229].
[180] Papageorgio: Straight to the bank. Scott [178] talks about the recent tax rebate
that most Americans will be receiveing and says that this is the answer to save the economy.
Hardly. The economy needs a lot more than this quick fix to be saved. Although this quick fix
is something I will enjoy to receive it is only something for the short term. Many economist
argue that this money will go straight to Americans savings account which will do nothing
to save the ailing economy. Last time this happened most of the money went to the auto
industry who offered zero percent financing. But who knows it can help a little but we
definitely still need a lot to fix our economy.
Message [180] referenced by [183] and [212]. Next Message by Papageorgio is [324].
[183] Slash: Re: straight to the bank. In response to [180], spending is the most
important part in the conversation of economic stimulation. When the government want to
get money into the the economy they give it to the middle and lower class, because it will be
spent instantly. When money is given to the rich they save it, this money is not put into the
economy to by commodities and be taxed.
Message [183] referenced by [185] and [196]. Next Message by Slash is [359].
[185] Goethe: Re: straight to the bank. I would like to comment on the entry by slash
[183]... what do you think is the true intention of this “economic stimulus” ?
Think about it; where is this money coming from? Who will pay it back? And who will
go without so the middleclass and low income can have a shopping spree?
This is another example of the downward spiral we are caught up in; the people who will
get these moneys are the people that will suffer in the long run.
The mentality of big business and capitalist government is to keep the people happy!!!

372 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
“Here people go spend some money, and don’t save it, go out and have a good time!!”
I would like to know who is in charge here.... It makes no sense??
Message [185] referenced by [196]. Next Message by Goethe is [278].
[189] Paul: Short fix. With regards to the other posts on the event of the government
giving the citizens money I want to say that it will most likely make a slight increase in the
economy but it won’t last long. This seems like a desperate move made by the white house
to try and fix what they have done to the economy over the last 8 years. And its probably
not even going to benefit the people who receive it that much. How many people are going
to get loans or lease something that they really can’t afford with this “free money.”
Message [189] referenced by [196], [201], and [212]. Next Message by Paul is [307].
[192] Chris: OUR money. I just wanted to lend my opinion on the economic stimulus
package while we are discussing it. The money we are getting back is our money that the
government took from our paychecks to begin with. They are giving us a small portion
of our taxes back. It is not “free money” it is “our money.” History shows that economic
stimulus packages like this do little to help the economy. Where I work, as a financial
analyst, there has been great debate over the stimulus package and if a recession can be
“healthy” for an economy. The feds decision to slash rates does not appear to be working.
The best solution appears to be to let the economy go into a recession and let the system
correct itself. Recessions have occurred on average, every 4 years in America. The last
recession happened about 6 - 7 years ago. It seems almost natural to let it happen instead of
consistently weakening the dollar and increasing inflation at this abnormal rate.
Message [192] referenced by [196]. Next Message by Chris is [197].
[196] Mitternacht: More government irresponsibility. I would actually prefer that the
government keep the money from the proposed economic stimulus package if I could be
assured that it would be used for social programs and to reduce the national debt. Currently
the European economy as a whole is doing just as well if not better than the current
US economy even though most European countries have a much higher tax rate than the
US. The difference is that a lot of the taxes collected in Europe go towards strong social
programs. Unfortunately the economic stimulus plan seems to be another in a long line of
irresponsible actions taken by the US government, and I for one do not trust the government
to act responsibly. Billions of dollars have been spent on unjust wars and space exploration
while 12% of the US population lives below the federal defined poverty level. Paul [189],
Goethe [185] and Slash [183] all point out that the money received from the stimulus will
most likely be spent quickly. It’s no surprise that US citizens are following the example
of their government which has been spending irresponsibly for years (especially over the
last 8 years). The economic stimulus may actually help out the economy in the short run,
but wouldn’t it be nice if someone made a case for being financially responsible instead of
encouraging increased consumption of goods?
I also feel compelled to respond to Chris’ [192] statement the “best solution appears to
be to let the economy go into a recession and let the system correct itself”. This same hands
off approach of letting the economy correct itself was taken by economists prior to the Great
Depression of the 1930’s, and obviously that didn’t turn out too well.
Message [196] referenced by [197], [206], and [207]. Next Message by Mitternacht is [223].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 373
[197] Chris: economic stability. I do not feel that the Great Depression was a complete
representation of economists’ “hands off approach” as Mitternacht suggested towards the
end of his column [196]. I also do not think that making broad generalizations when dealing
with The Great Depression in reference to our current economic state is anywhere close
to accurate. The Great Depression was the result of numerous policy actions taken across
the entire world. The World’s economic output declined drastically and we saw an almost
600% increase in the stock market for 8 years prior to the Great Depression. There were no
boundaries set in stone in monitoring the markets (this was a definite hand’s off approach)
and shareholders were making a killing in unrealized gains. As a result of this, shareholders
were wildly speculating. When the Great Depression hit, many nations responded with trade
barriers, which hurt job growth, etc.
Maybe I should not have said the economy should utilize a “hands off approach.” I DO
think a recession at this time is inevitable. I also think the Fed’s drastic interest rate cuts are
over zealous. I also feel that if given the opportunity, I could utilize my tax paying dollars
better then the government can to benefit my personal well-being, those around me, and the
economy as a whole.
Next Message by Chris is [226].
[198] PrivateProperty: Re: Free money! Hahaha, [178] was a good one. I always enjoy
a healthy dose of humor on the discussion board.
Next Message by PrivateProperty is [200].
[201] PrivateProperty: Re: Short fix. In response to [189]: The economy would be
stimulated the most if this money was primarily targeted towards the lower class. They have
a higher marginal propensity to consume, thus most of every dollar would be spent rather
than saved. If the government wants to promote saving and investment, leading to long-term
growth, then it should do just the opposite and give the money to the upper class.
I’d like to say something, that nothing in this world is free. In any payout by the government,
you are either taking resources away from others, or others are taking resources away
from you.
Next Message by PrivateProperty is [202].
[202] PrivateProperty: Unpredictability of markets. Hans said in [190]:
“By their efforts to master the market, they do what capital needs them to do in order
to grow. As I said in [156], the economic agents are the marionettes carrying out what the
system needs them to do.”
If this is the case, how do we go about having the market as a natural outgrowth of
human activity, and not the other way around? It seems like an endless feedback loop. Can
dissenting indviduals do alright within the system, or does the entire system need to change?
Also, on a different note, I noticed you (Hans) mentioned on your website that the US is
attempting to militarize outer space. Could you tell me more about this? Are you referring
to the Star Wars ‘missile defense’ plans?
It would greatly upset me if outerspace were to be privatized in any way.
Next Message by PrivateProperty is [209].

374 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
[206] FacistFrank: Re: More government irresponsibility. I agree with Mitternacht
[196] for the most part, except I just felt I had to get his information out there. The Federal
government spends less than 0.5% (I believe it’s somewere between 0.2 and 0.3%) of its
annual budget on NASA, during the Kennedy, Johnson years it reached its height between
0.6 and 0.7%. We spend very little on space exploration, that’s not even 1% of annual govt.
money. In fact if we spent more maybe 0.45, we could help to innovate in new technologies,
that may actually end up helping us solve global warming, one famous invention was velcro,
another is solar panel innovation, that came from NASA. I also think it could show Americans
and the world that they could hope again, that we still can achieve great things. I think
it could revive interest in intellectualism and the sciences, and take our minds off greed for a
moment. I also think that going to Mars and beyond could help all of humanity move closer
to feeling as one, as we are reminded again just how small and fragile the earth is. I think
NASA is a solid investment in the future of humanity that is sadly being ignored. Of course
money is needed for other things, so i’d like to see a modest increase to 0.5%, we spend to
much money dividing the world and killing people, lets spend a little more to try to unite it.
Next Message by FacistFrank is [264].
[207] Bar: Re: More government irresponsibility. Mitternacht [196] says a few things
that I would like to discuss and refute: he says, he “would actually prefer that the government
keep the money from the proposed economic stimulus package if I could be assured that it
would be used for social programs and to reduce the national debt.” Now i would love to
see how increasing social programs is going to reduce debt, higher taxes for more social
programs or in other words, more spending is going to reduce debt, hmmm and sometimes
2+2 equals 5.
What taxes do, is lower the growth in the economy not to mention crowd out consumers
of certain markets. The Keynesian (I hope I spelled that right) approach didn’t really get us
out of the great depression either, supposedly government spending is suppose to increase
the aggregate demand, hmmm well why didn’t we get out of the depression with all those
alphabet soup programs, income taxes, and government employment, until the increased
production of world war 2, I guess more than 10 years is relatively short.
When he says, “Unfortunately the economic stimulus plan seems to be another in a long
line of irresponsible actions taken by the US government, and I for one do not trust the
government to act responsibly.” Why have more social programs then? are u a masacist?
the fact of the matter is that those horrible, oppressive, racist George Bush tax cuts back in
2002ish for the rich, got us out of a horrible post 911 recesion caused by, 911 and Enron.
This stimulas is probably not big enough, but at least it’s something. Also the best thing to
fix the defecit is to cut taxes, which will let the economy grow faster, bringing in more money
then any tax increase ever would and spite all those income redistribution social programs.
unemployment rates in US 2008: 4.9
Other European countries:UK: 5.4
Spain: 8.1
France: 8.1
Spain: 8

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 375
Not to mention the average over the years is a lot higher than the US. Now if the EU
spends more money on social programs, why is there higher unemployment? And the US
average GDP growth is also slightly higher than EU.
Next Message by Bar is [267].
[212] Rey: Cash falling from the sky! In light of the popular discussion regarding the
economic stimulus package I agree with much of what has already been said. In expressing
my opinion I will use the words of Republican Senator Judd Gregg, “The rebate proposal,
which amounts to flying a plane full of cash over the country toward the end of the year,
will force us to charge at least 200 billion dollars to the federal credit card, and there is
no guarantee it will actually work. . . A better approach would be to take the targeted steps
that will stimulate the economy through job creation and economic investment.” As seems
to be the popular conclusion, and has been stated directly in posts [180] and [189], I feel
the stimulus is a short-term solution to a long-term problem. By putting another 500-600
dollars in each individuals pocket will do next to nothing, long term for the economy. Yes
maybe we will pick up that sweet pair of jeans or that new iPod we have been eyeing, but
really what does that do to keep our economy stable long term. More appropriately I would
like to see a bigger investment into small businesses and entrepreneurial entities. Granted
this would take a little more time and research, and we are all aware we are working against
the clock here. However I feel it would be worth risk and effort. Over the past year I have
come in contact with several young, ambitious individuals who are looking for a way to raise
capital for innovative start up businesses. It is among my biggest frustrations to see these
ideas suppressed and lost due to the inability to find capital. In my own efforts I spent three
to five months working with government insured programs only to be jerked around and
denied in the end. I fortunately had a network with deep enough pockets to see my visions
and goals get off the ground, but again I know many who haven’t had the same stroke of
luck. If the government were to free up more funds for start-ups, who will be sure stimulate
the economy through job production and the production of goods, we would at least begin
the process of a long term solution.
Next Message by Rey is [265].
[217] Jenn: What came first, the demand or the commodity? My early and minimal
understanding of Marx believes the economy all begins with a commodity; or at least this is
how he begins its analysis in Das Kapital. However, if there is no demand for a commodity,
wouldn’t there be no commodity? Doesn’t it make sense to look at the economy from a
demand standpoint rather than the commodity? Aside from the basic “we buy lots of things
we don’t need” argument, I would love to hear some of your opinons on this “chicken or the
egg” type thought.
Message [217] referenced by [221], [222], [223], and [227]. Next Message by Jenn is [300].
[221] PrivateProperty: Re: What came first, the demand or the commodity? Jenn
makes an interesting point in [217] that if there was no demand for a commodity, the commodity
would cease to exist because nobody would produce it. However, this assumes that
this particular commodity already exists and is in production.
Economic theory measures demand ‘a posteriori’, by analyzing the data from transactions
after they have occurred.

376 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
However, looking at the concept of demand in a different way, it is possible for demand
to predate the existence of the commodity. It is the demand for a particular use value that
brings about a commodity that provides it. For example, if your hands are cold in winter,
you will want them to be warm. You can go indoors, put your hands over a fire, a variety
of things. What you care about is your hands being warm, which these activities provide.
Gloves, which are commodities, were invented because they satisfy this particular use value
(demand or need).
So in this sense you are correct, if the demand for a use value doesn’t exist (or if the use
value itself doesn’t exist) then obviously no commodity will be created in order to satisfy it.
That goes without saying.
Message [221] referenced by [227] and [234]. Next Message by PrivateProperty is [248].
[222] Aaron: RE: What came first, the demand or the commodity? Jenn raised an
interesting question in [217]. I believe that the demand for a commodity must have come
first. In a society, it does not seem logical that a person would just randomly come up with a
commodity and try to profit from it without having a demand for it in the first place. Human
ingenuity tells me that as a profit hungry species, humans will try to maximize the desire
of other humans to want an object. Not the other way around. A fisherman in a primitive
society would not have a job if there was not a demand for the fish in the first place. A
commodity becomes a commodity because people want it, whether it be time, money, or a
tradable good.
Next Message by Aaron is [410].
[223] Mitternacht: Chicken/Egg. Jenn [217] I believe that Marx wasn’t necessarily
saying that the commodity came chronologically before demand or anything else. His point
seems to be that the commodity is the most logical starting point for examining capitalist
economy/society.
The question that you posed has me scratching my head a bit though ... if there were no
commodity, there could be no demand for it vs. if there were no demand for a commodity
why would the commodity exist?
Next Message by Mitternacht is [371].
[227] CousinIt: Commodity and demand. Jenn in [217] asks, “...if there is no demand
for a commodity, wouldn’t there be no commodity? Doesn’t it make sense to look at the
economy from a demand standpoint rather than (from the) commodity (standpoint)?...”
First of all, I think it might be useful not to confuse things-made-by-humans as use-values
and things-made-by-humans with the intention of putting them up for sale (the appearance
of commodity) for the explicit purpose of acquiring more of the generalized commodity (or,
in other words, for money...capital).
I think this is what PrivateProperty [221] is getting at in his response to Jenn in saying:
“it is possible for demand to predate the existence of the commodity. It is
the demand for a particular use value that brings about a commodity that
provides it. For example, if your hands are cold in winter, you will want
them to be warm. You can go indoors, put your hands over a fire, a variety
of things. What you care about is your hands being warm, which these

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 377
activities provide. Gloves, which are commodities, were invented because
they satisfy this particular use value (demand or need).”
While it might be obvious to some of us, I do think that we need to make an important
distinction (to extend what is said here) between a thing-as-commodity and a thing-as-usevalue
(which PrivateProperty begins to do in the first part of this paragraph). I would contend
that use-values pre-exist commodities.
In the case of producing a use-value, one is making something useful for oneself, family,
extended family, friends, or the chance acquaintance or stranger that one might happen upon
who has similar needs. In such cases (before a thing-as-use-value is transformed into a
thing-as-commodity) one would either give the thing away, show the others how to make
it for themselves, or trade it for something that serves as equivalent-though-different use
values for himself. The basic unit of social interaction is the actual relationship between the
actual human participants.
This is vastly different than making multiple copies of a particular thing with the intention
of getting more out of them than you put into them (in terms of exchangable labor
power imbedded in the product). Through the emergence of the commodity as the basic
unit of social interaction, as that through which social relationships are mediated on a large
impersonal scale, through the flow of commodities of which extraction and accumulation of
exploited labor power is the main purpose, society as a whole is pathologically socially ill.
Yet, the diseased condition is taken as ‘natural’ and ‘normal’ due to the fetish-like character
of the commodity that gives it seeming supranatural power over all, including the capitalist
(exploiter and owner of the means of production).
Getting back to Jenn’s original question, this begs another question. Beginning either
from the commodity or from the standpoint of demand, what we might want to know is the
purpose for which we are analysing the economy. If we want to know how to better exploit
labor and natural resources for the sake of increasing profits for the owners of the means of
production (i.e., our ‘masters’) and thus continuing the exploitation of producers, then we
might want to start from the simplistic and narrow standpoint of supply and demand which
effectively obscures the facts of social production and is concerned only with a particular
selectively ignorant notion of what counts as ‘efficiency’ or as ‘efficacy.’
However, if we want to, by way of social scientific analysis, understand the nature of
the social pathology that is capitalism, its diagnosis, prognosis, and possible cures, then we
must, as Marx does, start with the basic communicative medium of exchange, transport, and
transmission of elemental pathogenic relations....i.e., the commodity...
Next Message by CousinIt is [263].
[234] Clayon: Re: What came first, the demand or the commodity? I agree with what
PrivateProperty says in the third paragraph of [221]. Ultimately I believe there must be a
demand for a commodity for it to be produced. A certain phrase comes to mind, necessity
is the mother of inovation. Someone earlier gave an example of a hand being cold, which
created the demand to create something to warm it. I believe this makes the most logical and
simple sense.
Next Message by Clayon is [381].

378 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
[235] Ryoung: Most Experienced to Help Out Our Economy. The primaries this year
have been very interesting to me. It has been a very tight race and up until Super Tuesday it
looked like the Democratic and GOP races could be neck and neck all the way to the end.
With Romney dropping out it looks like McCain is going to be the representative from the
GOP side and it looks like the Democratic nomination will go right down to the wire. It has
also been a unique election due to a woman, a black man, and a member of the LDS church
(before Romney withdrew) all having a legitimate shot to win the office. I had always been
leaning toward Romney as I believe that he has the experience and ability to help out our
economy the most efficiently. Obviously he is gone and I wanted to post the question to
everyone, who is most qualified to help our economy as president, and who is most likely to
help our economy the most as president? Right now I seem to be leaning towards Obama.
Message [235] referenced by [242]. Next Message by Ryoung is [255].
[242] Brody: RE: Most Experienced to Help Out Our Economy. In response to [235],
Obama is the clear choice here. He brings intelligence and a new sense of responsibility to
the Democratic party. I have nothing really against Hillary other than she may have more
than a few screws loose. She has stated many times that she feels she can take money by
increasing taxes for large businesses but I don’t see that as helpful to the economy in any
way because if a company’s taxes rise its prices rise and we are left paying more for goods
and buying less. This to me is completely counteractive to the new economic stimulus plan
that has finally been agreed on.
Next Message by Brody is [344].
[248] PrivateProperty: Re: Most Experienced to Help Out Our Economy. Though
he doesn’t stand a chance of winning, Ron Paul (Republican) would do the most for the
economy. He would pull all personnel out of Iraq, North Korea, and Europe (huge expenditures
all around) and abolish several costly and unnecessary institutions, namely Homeland
Security, the Department of Education, and the Federal Income tax. Less government, in a
nutshell. All of these savings would significantly improve the economy.
From the available selection, however, I think our best bet is Obama.
Next Message by PrivateProperty is [321].
[249] Dentist: presidential race. I think that this election the “best qualified candidate”
depends on what exactly you are looking to change or have accomplished during the next
presidential term. The following is what I have concluded from the candidates that have
been brought up thus far.
In terms of low risk, long run economic growth I think Romney would have made a great
candidate, mostly due to his effects in, and knowledge of the private economic sector.
Ron Paul’s drastic reduction in the overall size and therefore spending in government
would theoretically produce new avenues for private sector growth; and his foreign policy
would keep more of what the government still spends in our own economy. Both of which
are good, again in theory; but I worry that such sudden drastic measures would cause firms
and investment to decline because there is no way they can be sure that the markets will
remain stable while these changes are being incorporated into our system. This would likely
result in a recessionary period before long run benefits began to be realized. So while he

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 379
does have some good long run ideas, the economy may be quite turbulent for a while. But I
guess “drastic times calling for drastic measures” is the idea.
Obama seems to be a good candidate if you are looking for something new in government,
which many people are. He does have a fresh appeal and seems to have been dubbed the
candidate for a new generation. This appeal could result in some actual change, but I think
the greater impact would be in the potential he might have to restore confidence of the people
in their government. The main problem I have with Obama is that I don’t know any specifics
of his ideas. For that matter, I don’t know anyone who is really aware of exactly what he
wants to do or how he wants to do it. So if anyone knows, I would be interested to hear. . .
Next Message by Dentist is [289].
[250] Bmellor: Communism in China does it work? China has a history that dates back
at least 4000 years. Their Nation prior to communism was ruled by an emperor the last of
which was Puyi. The Chinese people lived for the emperor, grown men would bow and overt
their eyes when he would approach them. I was recently in China, I visited the “Forbidden
City” which is now a museum owned by the Chinese government. It was forbidden because
only the emperor was allowed in some parts of the compound and in some rooms. People
could be put to death for using the wrong door or gates in some parts of the compound. His
home was 9,999 rooms, one less room than the Gods home had, and meanwhile people were
dying in the streets of starvation. No one in the entire nation was allowed to wear yellow
articles of clothing except for the emperor. And if you are going to make duck for dinner
you had not better make “Peking Duck” because that was a dish reserved for the emperor,
violation of which was punishable by death. The emperor would make outrageous requests
of his people and they would follow. For example in the city of Suzhou there is a canal that
spans almost 2000 km long it was built so that the emperor could take a cruise on his man
powered boat, in the end it proved to beneficial for the city as means of transporting goods,
but that was never it’s intent.
The Chinese people are now allowed to visit the Forbidden City, tourists cross the mote
and in through the main gates under a massive portrait of Mao Zedong (the first communist
leader of China) reminding them that this visit was made possible by communism. I was
taken back by the portrait when I stood there in Tiananmen Square, when I considered the
hundreds of peaceful Chinese protesters were slaughtered right in that very square for opposing
corruption in the government that Mao organized. It was an odd experince no mention
of that Massacre in 1989 was ever made by our guide while we stood in that square, and
certainly not by me. There are security cameras, police, and military men every 100 feet or
so on that square, some Chinese don’t even know the massacre ever took place. But when
I got past the square and into the “Forbidden City” I finally felt like maybe I understood
why they accepted the oppressive government that they have. It was the lesser of two evils.
These people wanted to “share” what the emperor had and communism made that somewhat
possible. Mao asked the people to share what they felt about communism and when people
did, he didn’t like it. The people who opposed him in the end were killed. This is the same
government that they have today however they have had to adapt. China must be the busiest
place on earth. In Shanghai where crowed streets were once filled with bikes, they are now
crowed with SUV’s and brand new cars. The “developing nation” is nearly developed or already
developed. The Chinese people have cell phones they communicate freely, they have

380 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
a monitored version of the internet, and they travel the world with moderate difficulty. The
government that they have has become itself capitalistic. In recent years the chairman of the
Chinese government has been quoted saying “to be rich is glorious.” This is not the China
that Mao would have approved of. China in its present state of “hazy regulation” is working
out just fine, but what happens when their trade surplus runs out? When the economic
dime turns and they are no longer the powerhouse, what will happen then? The Chinese will
grow accustomed to the lax form of government and will express displeasure with the government
just like everyon in a democratic country going though economic hardship. What
then? Will the Chinese government be tolerant of a free democratic opinion then? It is all
fine and dandy when people are pleased with the government but communism in China has
be historically ugly when people express anger or suggest change to the government.
Their government operates extremely efficiently because information is asymmetrical.
There is no transparency. You pay taxes, but there is little you can understand of how it is
spent, or most importantly object to how it is spent. 55 men with one chairman make up the
leadership of the government in China that is what separates them from having a militant
dictator like North Korea. But who knows if or when their government will have such
a leader again. For Americans Investments in China are considered extremely profitable
however they are also extremely risky. You could be shut down tomorrow if the Chinese
government desires it and there isn’t a thing you can do about it. Maybe you aren’t shut
down but they declare that your company now belongs to “the nation.” At one time this
was very common, I went to a silk factory once owned by Japanese and because of its
success it was sequestered by the Chinese government. Where is the incentive to become
an entrepreneur in China? Up until recently there has been very little incentive. In the late
1990’s the Chinese government set up “free trade Zones” in certain areas, and recently that
spread too many of parts of the country. People own shops and stores in hopes that the policy
doesn’t change back to the way it once was.
An interesting fact I noted things are cheap in China but if the same good of same quality
was sold in a Chinese store and was made in North Korea or Vietnam it was even cheaper.
The things you purchase in China are not necessarily “made in China.” That got me thinking;
everything we buy from China is marked“ made in China.” But what if it’s not really made
in China, what if it is made in North Korea but marked “made in China?” How would you
know? You don’t and if you leave it to the Chinese government you will not know, when
you buy a pair of shoes you could be funding the North Korean government. After this last
summer’s fiasco with Kim Jong IL We should all be asking ourselves if that is something we
really want to be doing? We could assume that the internet and the globalization of markets
is going to make it very difficult for China to operate under a shroud of mystery but perhaps
it will facilitate their ability to hide things from the rest of the world.
Next Message by Bmellor is [282].
[261] Dyoung: I also feel that Obama is the better choice for the democratic party. I think
Obama sincerely wants to bring America to what it once was. He understands how people
feel. He has worked with people to makes their lives better and he has gone to Washington
to try to make a difference. He is criticized for lacking experience but I would ask what
those who claim to have so much experience have done to keep us out of the problems
poor government management has created? He has had experience on the street, in the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 381
communities, and with groups of people who need help and he has done well with it. While
others were sitting in Washington passing bills they had no idea what they were for he was
helping people.
I don’t really like Hillary Clinton just as Brody stated “she feels she can take money by
increasing taxes for large businesses,” I don’t think this plan seems helpful at all for the
economy, Like Brody I think that is will cause an increase in goods and consumers will end
up buying less.
Obama is my choice for the democratic party.
Next Message by Dyoung is [279].
[263] CousinIt: President Schmesident. I’m reading various people reproducing the
campaign slogans and dissentary cliches auto-dribbling from the mouths of the candidates
and I am moved to throw my pennies into the p*ss pot....
The way I see it, none of the candidates are intending to, nor can they, really change
anything in any significant way. After the election, things will be back to business-as-usual
just as they always are. Republicrats and Democretins are just two legs of the capitalist
oligomonocracy that masquerades as a two-party system (as if a two-party system is such a
great expression of democracy, anyway...no tie-breaker...). Both Republicrats and Democretins
all golf at the same country club where most of us can’t even use the restroom facilities.
The late Bill Hicks used to tell a joke in which the story goes that when someone is
newly-elected president, he is led into a dark cigarsmoke-filled screening room where the
ten or so wealthiest industrialists are gathered. They roll a copy of the Zapruder film of the
JFK assassination from an angle no one has ever seen before. The lights come on and the
new president is asked, “Any questions?”
John Edwards was the only candidate that said anything remotely proximal to what really
needs to happen in America ...and the world. That is, we need to take our government back
from the capitalists and start doing what is right for people and the environment, not what
corporations want us to do. Of course, most people probably think that what is right for
corporations is right for people because what is right for corporations is right for people because....
Because of the indoctrination that they have swallowed hook-line-and-sinker, they
probably can’t tell the difference between good and bad whenever there’s money around
stinking up the room. It gets them all giddy and stupefied and patriotic and all ....whatever.....etc.
Corporations, in fact, as was feared long ago by Thomas Jefferson, now have more rights
that do individual citizens. Any and all candidates who do not address this fact are merely
bag boys and check-out girls for the system. We should be laughing all of these kinds of
politicians out of town on a rail, tarred-and-feathered, and dump them into the ocean (except
that can’t be good for the water). They are only interested in protecting the property rights
of the wealthy owners of society and everything in it (who got them into a position to run
for president at all in the first place) and, sorry folks, that ain’t you and me.....
You can all go on politico-babbling about Schmillary Glintone and Borat Yomamma, but
in the end, after the ballots are closed, settle down in front of the idiot box and get ready

382 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
to witness more and more of the same old endless pooh....no matter who gets to be president
schmesident...puppet of corporate power and control...protector of capitalist interests
worldwide....
“Go back to bed, America...your government is in control...” -Bill Hicks
Message [263] referenced by [264], [270], and [274]. Next Message by CousinIt is [271].
[264] FacistFrank: Re: President Schmesident. CousinIt I respect your opinion, and
from reading all the comments you have left here up until this point I was under the honest
impression that you were a quite intelligent individual. However I find this last comment
[263] beneath you, you seem to me to be fishing for a flame war, I won’t indulge you.
You raise quite legitimate points about our problems in America, then you use inflammatory
overblown language that negates all the intelligent criticisms that you made earlier. I
agree America has given the corporations far too much power, and I agree we need change,
however I believe the change that you want would be like a person trying to swallow a jawbreaker
in one gulp. 25 years after the French revolution the country was once again under
the control of a despot, it was too much change too fast. I also think you are under the false
impression that JFK REALLY wanted to change things, I recently read the Kennedy men
by Laurence Leamer, JFK was more concerned with his image than with changing things,
he was much more conservative than Lyndon Johnson, who risked his status, and was disgraced,
for social change. There is the impression out there that JFK was a super liberal,
and was killed because of it, he was quite conservative. (And I am a staunch democrat!)
JFK supported liberal change on a more intellectual level, where LBJ supported it on an
emotional visceral level.
I am an Obama supporter, I canvassed for him during the Utah primary, I am not foolish
enough to believe that he is some kind of American savior, or will turn this country into
a utopia. I only believe that he has the potential to help us get on the right path for the
change we need, the ultimate goal, to take power from the corporations and give it back to
the people, this is a long term goal, long term as in decades, it may even take a century.
Even with that said change must come in the minds of Americans, he is only one man, there
is only so much he can do. Who knows, If Obama is elected, he may even suffer the same
fate as Jimmy Carter, Carter was too honest, he told Americans the truth about themselves,
and they didn’t like it so they elected Ronald Reagan. Reagan told Americans they were
perfect and the only problem was the government. It’s the exact reverse, the people have the
problem, not the government. The people elected George Bush.
I don’t think name calling is going to make anyone smarter, or get us any closer to identifying
to the problems America has. I don’t mean to insult you or anyone else, only to offer
a criticism. It also upsets me that I am addressing a person instead of an issue. I hope you
don’t take this personally.
Message [264] referenced by [271]. Next Message by FacistFrank is [294].
[267] Bar: Corporations, Marx, and Thomas Jefferson. Put down the Michal Moore
movies, and stop drinking the kool-aid. If I get this straight CousinIt thinks corporations
are evil, and we are going to solve all the “problems” in America by killing corporations
through more regulation, more government control, and socialization. God I’m so happy
my generation doesn’t vote. Anyways, the fact of the matter is it’s not solely corporations

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 383
running the government, it’s special interest groups: Farmers and their “farm subsidies,”
unions, and even the corporations and their lobbyists, not to mention, MoveOn.org, the gun
lobbyists, big oil, educations unions, pro-choice and pro-life groups. There are many right
and left wing groups who have a lot of control in the government, because these minority
groups usually have substantial amounts of money and because their groups are small, they
can easily organize, but the corporation bad? I don’t think so. Corporations create a culture
of meritocracy, not egalitarian bull; success is what matters, goals, and accomplishments.
The stupid argument that corporations manipulate our tastes and preferences soooo much
that really we don’t make decisions, is so dumb, Marx really shouldn’t have based his psychological
premises from physiologist theory of the time, that believed 110% in nurture and
nothing in nature – Blank slate bull. Today developmental physiologists believe that genes
also play a huge role in development of our tastes and preferences, not just our socialization.
Thomas Jefferson was not an ideologue, he also didn’t believe in Federalism, didn’t
like investment in manufacturing, or expansion westward, but in the end he made the decision
to embrace Federalism, saw how large scale manufacturing benefited the country, and
made the Louisiana Purchase. If he were alive today he would embrace the corporation.
In conclusion, “when people say power to the people” referring so socialized anything and
getting rid of privatization or the corporation, you need to go back and read 1984, and see
how Orwell shows how big government manipulates the “prols,” heck, look at Stalinism,
Che and Fidel, Cambodia, and all those sooo successful leftist movements and see how well
big government worked. People give up liberty through more government; they don’t gain
power, what Thomas Jefferson really worried about.
Message [267] referenced by [271]. Next Message by Bar is [292].
[268] Hans: The US State of Denial. Here is an excerpt from today’s blog on Creative-I
by William Bowles:
http://www.creative-i.info/?p=211
Frankly, I find it extremely difficult to communicate the nature of contemporary US society,
it’s so over the top as to defy description even for someone raised in a so-called developed
country like the UK or for someone who lived in the Big Apple for seventeen years.
And as the contradictions of a capitalism in crisis increase, so too does the frantic nature of
its desire to justify itself by any means necessary, including the use of the enormous force of
the machinery of state.
It’s the impact on people, like a very close friend of mine here that typifies the paradox
involved, for when confronted with the reality of life here by my writings, she gets defensive,
even as she knows that as a black woman, she has borne the brunt of this society for her
entire life. But who can blame her, she has to live here and deal with it 24/7, who wants
to be reminded of the fact, especially by a foreigner like myself, friend or no friend. For
the fact is, I like Americans, they are a generous, friendly and uninhibited people, especially
working class Americans, people I find I have more in common with than the Brits (which
is perhaps one of the reasons I lived here for seventeen years).
But at the same time they are totally ignorant of the real state of the world and their
own country and kept that way by a corporate media and an mis-education system that

384 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
corrupts young minds. Blind even to the reality of their own lives because they have been
brainwashed into thinking that ‘failure’ is the result of their own personal failure as human
beings, not that of the system which screws them every which way, literally from cradle to
grave.
Next Message by Hans is [269].
[270] Inter: RE: President Schmesident. The remarks in post [263] are well taken. I
think there is one fundamental question which needs to be asked: do think the United States
would be in the same position that it is in today if Al Gore had won in 2000?
Depending on how you answer that question, illustrates what type of choice we have in
the election, and the potential differences between the candidates.
Next Message by Inter is [302].
[271] CousinIt: Giddy-er by the minute... In response to [264] and [267] ...
Well, I can tell which hook, line, and sinker you both are choking on...it gagged me,
too....had to spit it out....you have my deepest sympathies..
Orwell is talking about the kind of Republicrat babble we have been stupid enough to even
acknowledge ever since 9-11-2001, no government spends more or bigger than a republicrat
one, and oh yeah, ‘egalitarian’ would be baaaad...fake ‘meritiocracy’ that is really a system
of doled-privilege is a lot better ;) ...the kind of ‘issues’ that are talked about in the electorobabble
are smoke-screen issues designed to keep us from addressing the fact that we are
being lied to and are cheated by everyone currently in government who are only interested
in looking like they are making slight tweeks to the status quo here and there...real change
would mean ditching the very structure that doesn’t work and scrapping the fake casinoeconomy,
even though you want to imagine that it is working...well, good luck with that,
Gunga Din...you are a better man than I, and I can tell you know it...
Close your eyes, breathe deeply, exhale and repeat the popular godblessthecorporation
mantras you’ve been memorizing along with that Chris Hannity jerk and everything will be
just fine...
....it’s so cute!!! Makes the big monkeysuit-and-tie-wearing daddies proud, I’m sure.
It is interesting, if not tragically amusing, how far you all will go to justify your corporationsuckling
in the warm embrace of false sense of security...
keep that corporo-facist glow burning bright...
What is insulting to me, because my daughter has to live in this sh*t-hole republicrats
and democretins are creating, is that you think a world run by fake elections administered by
corporate and special interests is better than a world run by actual democratic government
of the people, for the people and by the people...
I have no problem with production or big government as long as we, the people, own the
means of production and the government, the economy, and our lives are run by us, the real
people on the streets. I do not fear big government that is mine. I do fear big government
that is run by the corporation because the corporation historically doesn’t give a damn about
people, especially when it goes beyond their tax write-off limit or starts to threaten projected
profits, even if you do really want to imagine that they do with your whole tiny little heart.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 385
We have to get special interests and corporations out of our government, start taxing
religions who are really fantasy-barking corporate money-machines with tax-exemptions,
and start doing what is right for the global collective instead of what is ‘profitable’ for
private interests....I’m tired of contributing to their moral- and intellectual-vacation packageprogram...
Of course this is something that, from within the occupational psychosis of eternal corporosuck
godblesscapital, is impossible for the occupationally psychoticized to begin to
imagine...Marx knew this would be the case...
It’s not your fault, you’re just very well-healed and very well-trained...now don’t forget
to put the seat down, go back to bed and let the Fortune 500 and the ‘coalition for a better
liberal lobby’ work it all out...
Sorry if you don’t get it or if you are offended by the fact that I don’t buy any of the
politico-babble on the TV gameshow we like to call “Election” Blah Blah Blah.....
If you think things are really getting better because of greater-freedoms-and-bigger-taxcuts-for-capital
and that New Perfect America is lurking around the next corner and that that
is what it’s all about, then there is nothing more to say but,
Goodnight America!!! Sweet Dreams!!!
Marx told us all about that kind of thinking process, too, and knew that nothing would
change until that kind of thinking was abolished once and for all....nevermind....it’s time to
go to back to bed...
Message [271] referenced by [274]. Next Message by CousinIt is [276].
[274] Trailrunner: Fearing to Respond. I found myself awake in the middle of the
night reflecting on some of the responses the last few days having to do with the presidential
elections. I realize that email is a wonderful things, but it can also be an evil thing at times.
We are not able to hear the inflection in someone’s voice, see their eyes or facial expressions
or always truly understand the meaning behind their words.
What I have felt from CousinIt [271] and [263] the last few days, has been anger and
it has made me wonder if I should even say anything (after all, I could be misinterpreting
what is being said). Then I began reflecting on all of the shootings lately that have taken
place in classrooms and other locations throughout the States (a subject that was casually
brought up in class on Thursday evening by Goethe) and wondered at the correlation that
might be there. Why is it that every time there is a message from certain people on this
mailing list, I find myself tensing up and wondering what negativity might be heading out
into the universe? My gut tells me that this is to be a forum where thoughts are shared and it
is recognized that everyone has a right to their own opinion, whether we agree with it or not.
A place where we can share our thoughts without the fear of being “beat up” for sharing.
One of the keys to healthy dialogue is that all those participating feel safe in sharing their
thoughts and speaking up. I feel that some of this safety has been lost lately and once again,
it took me back to thinking about random shootings.
Do I need to start wearing a protective vest when I attend this class? I realize this is a bit
overboard and I am taking this to a limit, but the point I would like to make is that there is

386 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
a way to respond to people that allows them to feel respected and to not feel threatened for
voicing an opinion. After all, we are all individuals with different experiences in our lives
and thus will always feel differently about things. We can continue to have strong opinions
about those things that are most meaningful to us, but it doesn’t mean that everyone else has
to feel the same way and it certainly doesn’t mean that we have the right to put someone else
down and make them feel small in the process of sharing our thoughts. As well, what is it
that makes a person purchase a gun, enter a classroom and start shooting? Are there signs
that are missed and would one of those signs be anger directed at random people that are
simply participating in a classroom assignment?
I apologize to CousinIt for using those two particular reponses and singling out this individual,
but these responses happen to be what started this whole line of thinking. My
thoughts go back to the comment made by Goethe the other night regarding all of the random
shootings lately and simply hope that this type of thing is something that none of us
ever has to experience.
Message [274] referenced by [276] and [277]. Next Message by Trailrunner is [297].
[276] CousinIt: You can lead a horse to water, but... In reference to [274]...
Wow!! Someone brings up the fact that, in a capitalist society you will never deal with
the exploitation until you recognize that capitalism is exploitive and will do whatever it has
to do to maintain and perpetuate itself and everyone starts freaking out and talking about
shooting people and stuff...an interesting reaction...
The reason I brought up the election-babble is that I thought there should be some other
voice that wasn’t parroting the same old “...well I think the puppet on the right appeals to
me...well, I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking....” conventional ballyhoo.
The next thing I know people are throwing the same tired-old “get off Michael Mooore..”
crap instead of dealing with the original comment which was, by the way, that Hillary and
Obama are just more of the same old “protect capitalism in America and the world” poohpooh.
Isn’t it interesting how everybody’s unconscious “godblesscapital” “everything’s OK as
long as we keep the capitalists happy” indoctrination kicks in, in ways that they can’t even
see or recognize because they think that the way they are thinking is “normal” or “natural”?
....just like they think capitalism is “normal” and “natural”...(we all know that, for Chrissake
!!!)...
Look folks, capitalism is not normal, is not natural, and is not moral. It hasn’t made
everyone rich or even prosperous. It was built on slavery and theft. It is merely a stage in
our species-development and it’s time to get on with the next stage where we decide that it’s
more important to take care of everybody, quit mucking up the environment, and make the
world a good place for children to come to, instead of trying to convince them that it’s OK to
murder, exploit, and let die. If you think the tasks I have mentioned as important ones in our
further development as a species are a bad list of bad things to do, you might want to stop
for a minute and see how absurd it is that you think so....we are not “homo economicus” or
“homo capitalus”...we are an explicitly “social” animal...so why not social-ism?

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 387
I am in a warranted position to judge capitalism, because we have tried it and it doesn’t
work. You cannot judge a socialism that has never been tried (I know you think that we
did try it in the Soviet Union and in China and Norway and Holland, but we haven’t, even
though you think we have....Sorry...I will probably have to explain this as well, and then
people will start talking about lobbing atomic warheads at each other.....).
This little email exchange we’ve been having should be instructive/illustrative of one of
the important (and apparently most difficult points) being made in this class. We do not
know that we are brainwashed (indoctrinated, spellbound, ideologized...whatever you want
to call it..) and we will attack anyone who says that we are (or at least try to get them to
shut up and sit down so we don’t have to have the conversation...see how that works? Cool
huh?)....
Thanks to all of you who participated in illustrating this very important point....do you
see it? ...I would be willing to bet my “hillary/barak for president schmesident” posters that
most people probably don’t (or won’t, no matter what the cost! That’s how deep the river of
blinding pooh can run...).
Do you know how I know who doesn’t know? Because I can tell when someone is still
thinking that the answers to the problems facing the nation and the world will be provided
by or within a framework of capitalism. I can tell when someone still thinks capitalism is a
good thing and refuses to see that it is over. It cannot sustain itself. It doesn’t work. I know
you think it does and wish that it would, and I’m sorry, but, it doesn’t and it won’t and you
probably don’t know it, yet, or you wouldn’t think I was talking about Michael Moore or
mall/highschool/college shootings.
(I have another theory about why these kinds of shootings happen that I’m sure no one
would want to think or hear being talked about either.... it’s OK...turn on the TV and go back
to sleep, America....Big Brother Capital will make everyone safe and warm if you will just
shut up, sit down, get out of the way, and let capital do everything and anything anywhere it
wants...Goodnight boys and girls....tomorrow we will all be trillionaires...)
Message [276] referenced by [294]. Next Message by CousinIt is [277].
[277] CousinIt: Evil, evil, everywhere..... It seems that Tailrunner [274] wants everyone
to be able to say whatever they want as long as no one is presenting an uncomfortable point
of view or is confrontational about things that should really matter, but that only get paid
lip-service, so that we can look like we really care alot...
Just because someone has a strong opinion and thinks it is worth arguing about doesn’t
mean they are going to come to school with a gun and start blowing heads off. I don’t even
own a gun because I mentally walked through the process of having to use it on another
human being and decided that it was something I was not willing to do.
Stop looking for “evil” in things that you fear or merely find hard to understand. Maybe
we are watching too much useless “news” these days. There is evil in the world, but you
might be surprised when you find it in your own everyday choices and tastes...that’s the place
to start looking...
“Am I evil? I am man. Yes, I am....” -Hetfield
Next Message by CousinIt is [308].

388 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
[291] Rey: Oh ya.....What are you gonna do about it? All this t-shirt revolution talk
is quite cute! I wonder if CousinIt read the inner flap on the same Anti-Flag CD that I did
while I was in high school. It would appear so, because all I can hear between mumbles
is “down with the corporations, down with the corporations!” Now I am not ignorant to the
fact that corporations and lobbyist have far too much power than they should (in fact I would
consider myself more educated than most in this area), but let’s take a little accountability
on ourselves to induce change. Rather then sit around and read books all day living in some
abstract play land where hope is a strategy, I would hope you recognize that we have the
personal responsibility to pull “the power” downward, protect ourselves and create our own
destiny. It ’s quite extreme to blame everything wrong with America on big business. I
know you are intelligent enough to see that the idea of free enterprise is one of the beautiful
things that has made America what it is today. With as much bad that has come from this
abuse of power within the system there is much good at the same time. The right people
in the right system will give us right results. A flaw in the individual is not a flaw in the
system. In fact as a third generation Chicano I have seen the “American dream” from an
intimate perspective. I take pride in the fact that my Grandfather came from a growing up in
a box car on the west side of Salt Lake, to owning and operating a successful business and
becoming a member of the Utah legislature. All the while paving the way for me to stand on
his shoulders and keep improving my social and economic situation. So in regards to biting
this so called propaganda hook line and sinker, I guess I am just another sucker. At some
point “the people” need to stop pointing fingers and take action! Not in direct reference to
CousinIt, because I would have no way of knowing, all to often it has been my experience
that those who lounge around and criticize the system all to often lack the ambition to go
out and place themselves in a position to do anything about it. To which they may respond
with their rhetorical excuse “you can’t change the system from within the system, because
it’s the system that ends of changing you.” This sounds like to me they would rather stay in
bed, besides its easier that way. Wake up America, and lets go get our hands dirty!!
In additional comments I would like to make note of the fact that I feel zealous debate
is a healthy part of the learning process. It’s what being part of a university is all about, all
to often we are quick to curl up and hide anytime our views are challenged. Granted we all
need to be respectful, but we also need not be so quick to be offended. We need to cut the
PC garbage out of our learning process and see things for what they are.
Message [291] referenced by [297] and [312]. Next Message by Rey is [379].
[292] Bar: Central Planning CousinIts “Special Friend”. CousinIt instead of addressing
any of my arguments in my last submission, he resorts to ad hominid attacks and fallacies,
he attacks conservatism, and the political process in general, well I guess that’s all you
can do when you have no rebuttal. He satires my view by saying, “and oh yeah, ‘egalitarian’
would be baaaad...fake ‘meritiocracy’ that is really a system of doled-privilege is a lot better
;)”
Which, is the equivalent to a teenager talking back to their mom, well I guess if your thirteen
your rhetoric my be useful. Furthermore, I would love to understand first, what a “fake
casino-economy” is, and second, how that is related to the US economy—maybe CousinIt
has a gambling problem, he wouldn’t be the first Marxist I’ve know who does. I’ll always
keep my “corporo-facist” glow burning bright, because with all of them out there, in a sense

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 389
it is another separation of power between the people and the government—game theory anyone?.
CousinIt goes on to say, “What is insulting to me, because my daughter has to live
in this sh*t-hole republicrats and democretins are creating, is that you think a world run by
fake elections administered by corporate and special interests is better than a world run by
actual democratic government of the people, for the people and by the people...” Hmmm
yeah so you have an ideal, hmm how would this ideal work? So if everything were run by
the people, the people would have means of production, like you state later in your piece. Ok
Utopian, so the only way I know to give the power to the people is through pure government
central planning, where we the people would make every little decision from great to small
by the majority of people. If the people truly make the decisions and you want to minimize
or get rid of corporations, private property needs to be abolished- all private property. If
not, how can the people truly make decisions when someone may have more power and
influence than another? For everything to work, we would have to have pure equality. Like
there is any other option? Of course not, if evolution has taught us anything it’s that we are
all equal. And lastly, all special interest groups would have to be abolished, how can the
government work while people are organizing against it? We can’t have for example, a car
manufacturer like GM who pays their assembly worker employees an average of $100,000
a year not to mention a spectacular medical plan, and the same pay each year for their pension,
while making $0 profit on each car sold(they only make money through financing).
This would create inequality for others in the economy. Ok so far, the government or “the
people” control my wage, my car option, my IQ. Now let’s look at other institutions, I have
my education which would be under the control of the people, I can’t go to a liberal or conservative
school, I have to go where “the people” decide that to go. Hmm, I couldn’t choose
my religion, that evilest of all the special interest group, that of coarse needs to be taxed–
right to congregate? What the hell were those founding fathers thinking, putting that into the
bill of rights? Power to the people through central planning, you’ve convinced me CousinIt
forgive me, I’ve seen the light through your quaint new world, god bless the people. My perspective
was all wrong, I’ve been brainwashed so many years now I didn’t even realize that
the corporations are evil. All we need to do now is sing Kum By Ya, or even better Imagine!
Like you said: “Of course this is something that, from within the occupational psychosis of
eternal corporosuck godblesscapital, is impossible for the occupationally psychoticized to
begin to imagine...Marx knew this would be the case...” Does that refer communism or capitalism
I always get that confused and yeah I addressed this already, not everything is nurture,
and your argument is flawed. Hard data shows that our genes contribute to our wants and
desires also– take a developmental psychology class, Marx didn’t have this knowledge when
he was developing his theories. I’ve explained some social aspects of why central planning
doesn’t work, which is the way Marxian’s give “power to the people.” Economically this
doesn’t work either, because it creates huge free rider problems and transaction costs, not to
mention a million other market inefficiencies, and reducing the wealth in society, which the
majority of theses problems are solved by creating better stronger private property rights.
The reason the US economy works and is not a “casino economy” is because it and all other
countries with British institutions create good governments with similar constitutions and
an emphasis on separation of powers, and small government etc–The exact opposite of central
planning–Note: the USSR and China obviously are still under that economy because it
worked sooo well.

390 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by Bar is [330].
[294] FacistFrank: Re: You can lead a horse to water, but... Cousinit [276] I think
you have interesting ideas that are intelligent and well thought out. But I also think you are
a dogmatist, this is the problem I have with the comments you are making, you state these
things as if they were clear as the sky is blue, when to me the sky is hazy. I myself am not
so sure, I think these things could be true, in some cases are even probably true.
Anyway, on another subject, I had a thought to myself recently that Adam Smith was
only half right. He says that competition is a good thing, that when all people compete
for their own interests, it works out to the benefit of the whole, (this should be modified to
when all people compete for their own interests AND the interests of the whole, it works
out to the benefit of both). If everyone fights for the last piece of pizza, they destroy the
pizza to the detriment of all. I think he was right about competition being a good thing,
but he fails to realize that the ultimate goal of competition is the destruction of competition.
In anything competitive, there must be a winner and a loser. When the winner wins, he
proceeds to abuse the losers. We need government to restore competition after competition
has ended. If competition were never to end, it could never begin, and therefore not exist. It
is in competition’s essential nature to die, and be reborn.
Next Message by FacistFrank is [295].
[297] Trailrunner: Thank you for Proving a Point. In [291], Rey proved the one point I
was trying to make in my comments yesterday. It seems that I’ve been placed in what I would
call the “granola” category and that I prefer not to see or participate in a healthy debate.
Debate is wonderful, especially if it opens our eyes to see things from a different perspective
and if it enlightens us and helps us learn. Learning from someone else’s perspective and
experiences can change our entire outlook on a certain subject. BUT, it can all be done with
respect. Attack the issue not the individual!
Rey spoke of his personal experience and proved the point that he could respond by
addressing the issues and he did so in an intelligent and respectful way. Thank you Rey!!
Next Message by Trailrunner is [405].
[300] Jenn: Soften up for the babies. Trailrunner, I share your opinion. Thank you
for speaking up. I am a little disappointed because I feel that CousinIt had some really
interesting points, but now I find myself pushing the delete button before I am even finished
reading. We are all taking this class to learn and I think FacistFrank put it really well with the
“swallowing the jawbreaker whole” analogy. We are all “socialist babies” and need to be fed
milk, not solid food right away. The hostility that seethes in some of CousinIt’s responses
causes me to close my ears to the valuable points he has to make.
CousinIt, you obviously take a leadership role in these email discussions. Despite your
hostility, I have a lot of respect for what you have to say - and I’m sure other people feel the
same way.
You have an opportunity to reshape our minds.
I hope you realize what an amazing opportunity this is. So I challenge you to step up and
do this. Soften a little so you can reach out to the socialist babies. Please, for the sake of our
country’s dire economic situation. Consider it your “tour of duty.”

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 391
Next Message by Jenn is [301].
[312] CousinIt: My Apologies. I would like to commend Rey [291] for this comment:
In additional comments I would like to make note of the fact that I feel
zealous debate is a healthy part of the learning process. It’s what being part
of a university is all about, all to often we are quick to curl up and hide
anytime our views are challenged. Granted we all need to be respectful, but
we also need not be so quick to be offended. We need to cut the PC garbage
out of our learning process and see things for what they are.
Bravo!!, comrade....
I am not offended by those who think that attacking me, my intelligence, and my conviction,
will change the fact that capitalism is wrong. What is interesting is that some folks
think they are being attacked personally, when what I attack is certain notions, attitudes,
and a political process that will never address capital as long as capital is its patron and the
notion that capitalism is OK keeps the conversation within particular bounds. The attempts
to take my comments out of context and suggest that I am dangerous and that I have some
evil intent is a typical ploy made by those who want other people with unpopular opinions
to shut up and sit down so that they can get their peice of the exploitation of others before
exploitation is made illegal.
I do have one critique of the “Oh yeah...what are you gonna do...” perspective. The thing
about true democracy and a critical perspective on the problems of capitalism is that the
answers are not pre-determined, are not part of a master ideology, and are not as easy as
staying within the boundaries using only certain colors to exclusion of other possibilities.
This means that I do not have all the answers. I don’t have any answers as to what I would
do because, obviously, the answers are probably ones we haven’t thought of because we
think that they lie in the realm of the impossible. The kind of answers that “Oh yeah, what
are you gonna do about it” wants are easy one-liner solutions. Real solutions must emerge
out of healthy (even if sometimes heated and impassioned) debate and deliberation by the
collective. Idealism is OK, if not necessary and inevitable. To criticize someone for being
an idealist is really saying something like, “I know you are but what am I?” and gets us
nowhere. The real answers are way too difficult to demand that one person come up with a
complete program to fix it all on his own, so I won’t grace such a question with an answer.
Also, I don’t mind using terms like “free-enterprise” but it is offensive to me when this
term is used to describe the economic system we are forced to live under. Any system that
designates certain commodities as “contraband,” which has differential tarrifs and taxes on
certain items, and places certain laws and restrictions on certain trades and commodities,
thus giving other favored trades and commodities unfair access to the market is not freeenterprise,
but is restricted trade and controlled-enterprise. I am not suggesting that freeenterprise
is even optimal or possible, but what we are doing is certainly not free.
Also to say that “America is wonderful because I know a member of an underprivileged
class who was able to ‘make it’ and achieve ‘The American Dream’” is called a “Horatio
Alger” story. Such stories are used to say, “If you can’t ‘make it’ in the current system it is
your own damn fault and not because there is anything structurally unfair or exploitative in

392 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
the structure of society.” This is a common tactic used by those who feel they have “made
it.” It is designed to make those who point to the structural failings in society to shut up, sit
down, and be happy that they are allowed to walk around amongst us, the “beautiful people.”
This being said, Rey....Bravo!! Extraordinary conditions require extraordinary tactics,
like the “Guerilla Ontology” I am attempting as a way to try and break through the naturalizing
fog of the capitalist psychosis. If all I ever posted made people happy and applauding,
nothing would be gained. The fact that I upset people lets me know I’m doing something
useful.
Be clear that I do not intend to attack people (as has been unrightfully attributed to me in
ad hominem attacks leveled against me in various postings) but that my intention is to attack
particular ridiculously selective and tautalogical political and social attitudes and political
cartoon characters that are darn well worthy of criticism and derision because they are just
more of the same old crap that keeps something as inhumane and environmentally destructive
as capitalism going. We don’t have time to be nice and comfortable in our discussion
of these issues. The time for niceities is over. Things like climate change, continuing imperialism
and slavery, and people who are suffering every second at the hands of corporate
profits cannot ethically or practically wait another minute longer for those who refuse to see
to wake up and vote America a consciousness. This is why the method I choose is “Geurilla
Ontology.” I have lost patience with the “God Bless Capitalism” crowd long ago...
I apologize if I make you angry or uncomfortable. I really don’t care how upset you
are. We should be upset. We’ve been buying into a lie for our entire lifetimes. The fact
that it does upset us so simply illustrates, in very graphic and emotionally salient if ugly
terms, the width and the depth of the prevailing ideological psychosis...and the fact that I
have accomplished at least part of what I set out to do in the first place.
“Anger is an energy” -John Lidon
Message [312] referenced by [367]. Next Message by CousinIt is [356].
[330] Bar: Is free speech dead? I find it really interesting that some people on this post
are actually discomforted by others expressing their views. Whoever, should be able to say
whatever they want, as long as its not some kind of slander or goes into the illegal realm.
The point of free speech is to be able to criticize society, policy, and individual, especially
to criticise arguments and rhetoric by government figures without fear of retribution. Even
further, no one should have to apologize for their view. These kinds of things happen all the
time in the media, Don Imas for example and many others have lost their jobs for expressing
a joke or a view that society doesn’t agree with. People have the right to be racist bigots,
just as much as they have the right to be enlightened individuals. People should not be able
to control others ideas, the founding fathers understood this, that’s why they emphasized
protecting minority rights. Arguments and rhetoric, in all forms, even personal attacks, can
be effective and healthy for debate. I would like to put a question to all the forum members.
Do you think that people should have the right to say whatever they want on this forum
without having to apologize?
Message [330] referenced by [337], [354], and [356]. Next Message by Bar is [376].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 393
[337] Spawnblade: Dead Free Speech, or Dead Etiquette? “Do you think that people
should have the right to say whatever they want on this forum without having to apologize?”
– Bar [330]
No. They should not have the right to say ‘whatever they want’ without having to apologize.
Instead of an absolute you have specified a limitless declaration. Both absolutes
and limitless (I’m unsure of any ‘professional’ term for this) statements should always be
denied in my opinion. There are limits and freedoms that should be applied in all (hah,
contradiction?) situations.
Is killing always wrong? Is dying never necessary? Is 2+2 always equal to 4? Are
political parties always useless? (Ok perhaps we have our exception here.)
If you all recall, there was a class specifically to teach internet etiquette. I’m sure most of
you spend time outside of class browsing the internet, maybe skimming facebook/myspace
and perhaps the groups affiliated with those social networking sites? I know I personally am
a member of several groups, I used to be a member of several more before I took a look at
their forums...
... I had never seen so much flaming in my life. Here is an excerpt that took merely 2
minutes of browsing to find. The group was “If this group gets 1,000,000 members, Keyan
will streak at Superbowl 42.”
Post topic: Legality Issue?
Mr. Civil: “Even if this guy IS bound by a legally notarized document–
which I somehow doubt– I suspect that it is illegal to strip at the super
bowl, and therefore the ‘legally binding’ document would not be legally
binding, because they would not notarize it if it pertained to illegal stuff, at
least that’s what I think. Even if they did notarize it I would think that he
still wouldn’t have to honor it, because it would be illegal.”
Mr. Flamer 1: “(Mr. Civil) your such a fag go suck a !$@#” (Replaced
names with their corresponding pseudos.)
Mr. Anti-Flamer 1: “haha your so funny (Mr. Flamer 1) stfu this guy makes
a valuable point and you go act like a tough guy maybe if you were so tough
youd have your own faggot %$$ picture up”
Mr. Flamer 1: “hahah a your so funny (Mr. Flamer 1) you a faggot and
what the !$@# does a pic have to do with anything fag”
Well that’s the gist of it, though it wasn’t an exceedingly long one, I didn’t feel like gathering
all the continuing posts. From reading this I am very confident in the education these
college students are receiving... Right. Frankly I know I am not alone in not wanting these
discussions to deteriorate into that. Otherwise you only have one point of view posting in
the discussions because other people do not want to deal with being harassed when framing
an alternative view.

394 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
That really is the distinction to address. I think I may go and reread the documents that
Hans linked us to on etiquette, but I believe it is important to note whether you are passing the
line on harassing the person you are ‘discussing’ things with. Keep in mind that a discussion
takes two people, and the point of having two points of view is to enrich the debates by the
meeting of the two sides. If this enrichment isn’t occurring then something is wrong.
Hopefully I didn’t offend anyone with the clip from the forums. I figure you can find it
anywhere so it wasn’t inappropriate to post, I apologize if I was mistaken in that.
Message [337] referenced by [355] and [356]. Next Message by Spawnblade is [390].
[354] Chris: here’s my expression of free speech. In reference to Bar’s [330] I would
like to say that yes, people do have a right to say whatever they would like without having to
apologize. However I would like to point out that no one to my knowledge asked CousinIt to
apologize and as a person with common sense I don’t quite find this contradiction he posted
as an apology: “I apologize if I make you angry or uncomfortable. I really don’t care how
upset you are.” That’s nice CousinIt, the feeling is mutual. Just like he decided himself to
say whatever he wanted to, so did those who posted rhetoric against him. And obviously, so
am I. The door swings both ways. Another thing I would like to point out is that just because
people have the right to say whatever they want, doesn’t mean they ought to sound like an
idiot doing it. There are many ways to post discussions on forums and in class with respect
and dignity to their fellow classmates. I personally feel that people on this email forum are
not upset at certain classmates’ views but upset at their lack of respect towards others. I find
it disheartening. Am I offended? Absolutely not. Do I come on here and find relentless
bantering at all mind changing? Absolutely not. Like someone noted a few postings ago,
any attempt by some of you to change others’ minds has long been thrown down the drain.
Start over because this is beginning to remind me of some Jr. High/High School rantings
and no, that’s not a compliment.
Message [354] referenced by [356]. Next Message by Chris is [355].
[355] Chris: my last posting on free speech. Just one last thing that I would like to say
while we are still talking about free speech. I would just like to say thank you to Spawnblade
for posting [337]. I feel that he really hit the point I was hoping to say, but he said it much
better. Thank you also for the example and for noting internet etiquette.
Message [355] referenced by [356]. Next Message by Chris is [418].
[356] CousinIt: Focus on issues. In reponse to [355] [354] [337] .... etc. etc. and so on
and so on....
Bar [330] has it right! In the ensuing discursive battle over who has been naughty and
rude, those who continually refuse to address the issues I have raised are the same ones who
accuse me of attacking people, in the same breath that they are attacking me! I have never
once named someone by pseudonym or aimed any of my comments at a specific individual.
I aim to destroy absurd attitudes and crass notions of entitlement. I have nonetheless become
the scapegoat for people who want to discredit without addressing the issues that are alluded
to in Capital, by the way, that I have raised repeatedly, in the absence of any well-thoughtout
rebuttals on the same issues. Everyone is only interested in making CousinIt say things
in a way that is comfy-cozy....“CousinIt this and CousinIt that and etc. etc.” How about
addressing the real “issues,” as you all are paying lip-service to doing?

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 395
Initially, I criticized the notion that any politics-as-usual operating within the framework
of corporo-fascist capitalism will have any effect at all on the fact that we do not control
our lives, that we are compelled by the commodity to comply (even if this means destroying
the environment) and that capitalism is all about exploitation of the less privileged in the
world so that a few can have more than they will ever need in 100 lifetimes, and that it will
stop at nothing, including genocide, murder, environmental destruction, and calandestinism
to achieve its goals and maintain its hegemony.
None of these issues have been addressed by subsequent postings, nor, unfortunately and
according to the restriction of discourse in American political debate, will they be addressed
by the candidates for president (John Edwards being the possible exception, but, to the relief
of the capitalist, he has gone away for the moment).
There are many words in the Engllish language and none of them are useless. Certain
words are able to say certain things. In some cases, no other words will do the job. If I have
offended people by my sense of humor, my criticism of attitudes/positions that I find equally
as offensive as any words could ever be, and my crude descriptions of the ugly world that
capital is making for us, they might consider that humor and black comedy are important
critical tools. They might ask themselves why they are so violently offended.
No one has commented on the illustration of the deep-seatedness of denial and demonstration
of occupational psychosis that these discursive exchanges have effectively elicited
from those screaming the loudest in defense of the current system., who continually hide
behind an attempt to control the discourse in a direction that lets them wiggle out of addressing
the issues as they have been continually raised (and ritually ignored). This is what
people do who can’t come up with rebuttals that are anything but the same old parroting of
the discourse they learn to memorize and recite on the capitalist-owned TV, radio, and their
printed counterparts in crime....i.e., the propaganda leg of the capitalist behemoth.
If you are defending capitalism and the current political system that protects and maintains
it, then you are defending genocide, murder, exploitation, and environmental irresponsibility.
Sorry, I don’t know how to put that politely. At least do us all the service of coming
up with valid intelligent arguments for defending such a system, rather than waste everyone’s
time quibbling over etiquette. Even Adolf Hitler at least did that. The ‘etiquette’ of
capital’s ‘polite society’ has ended and destroyed the lives of many people, communities,
and families throughout its history. The demand for ‘polite speech’ has effectively silenced
many dissenters to many criminal programs....just a few examples of the dangers of ‘polite’
speech. I do find the feigned politeness of current political discourse very very personally
offensive, indeed.
There is a very interesting discussion of environmental irresponsibility that is seemingly
beyond our power to address going on in parallel to the continual whining about etiquette
some of us are obsessed with.
Address the issues, please! I beg you!
Enlighten me to the wonders and the beauty of the corporo-fascist system you are determined
to defend, rather than trying to discipline my right to speak out against it, even to
point out things that I find ridiculously offensive to our intelligence and our humanity. My

396 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
ridicule is reasoned and purposeful, whether you think it is or not, and is about addressing
issues, attitudes, and illuminating absurdities, not “getting at” the people behind them. They
can’t help themselves and I know this. I do not blame them but the structural facts of the
society that they live in. If you see yourself in the cynically-laced cartoons I am painting
such that you feel the violent compulsion to attack me for saying so, is that my fault? Isn’t it,
rather, something you might benefit from reflecting upon? Where does this undying devotion
to the Imperial machine come from? Ever wonder why you think what you do? I do...You
are not the capitalist, but the exploited proletariat. Yet, you are dead-set on defending your
oppressor. Is that not a glaring contradiction? Doesn’t that seem very very odd to you? It
does, to me.
Yes! Issues, issues, issues, please.....anytime you’re ready....I am still waiting....
Next Message by CousinIt is [397].
[363] Goethe: NO FUN!!! The postings from the past week have been very interesting,
and entertaining! CousinIt seems to have some very strong opinions about the realities of
human existence. I must agree with the majority of what has been posted. Capitalism has
reached its point of diminishing return..... We truly live in a world where supply powers
demand. I have been a student of economics for less than a year so these ideas are all new
to me, I keep an open mind and an open heart as I weigh and consider all that I absorb.
Was Marx on to something? I think that his ideas (what I have read so far) are logical,
and he was a man ahead of his time. A comment was made to me the other day about Marx
being the father of communism... I am curious of the class’s opinion on this!! Communism
as we know it exploits human rights, participated in genocide, and is ruled by a central
dictator. The father of this was Joseph Stalin!!! CounsinIt is correct that our current system
“maintains genocide, murder, exploitation, and environmental irresponsibility.” But it is not
the fault of the system, it is human nature that is doing this. And the reality is that it will not
stop until it is too late....
Our system is not perfect but we still go to Wal-mart and buy the cheap electronics that
have been manufactured by third world workers with their pain and suffering. We will
continue to consume; we must, the foundation of the world depends on our consumption.
It does not matter if we need stuff as long as we go out and buy it. Capitalist, Socialist or
Communist; we are in a global economy and the actions of one country affect all others.
I appreciate your humor Cousinit and I do get it... I also see that you are too intelligent to
believe that capitalism is the root of all evil. As you stated “man is evil” for it is man (and
women) that is the root of the problems we all face.
So what to do? We can take the Thoreauian approach and go out, live off the land and
produce for ourselves the basic necessities. That would be no fun!!!
“No fun to hang around
Feelin’ that same old way
No fun to hang around
Freaked out for another day” -Stooges

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 397
:)
Message [363] referenced by [397] and [2012fa:560]. Next Message by Goethe is [438].
[367] Brody: In response to CousinIt. I personally agree with CousinIt [312] as far as
solutions coming from debate and passionate discussion, but cousinit must present at least a
start to a solution. To continually whine about capitalism and not have at least a suggestion
to the start of something or the presentation of an idea is to do the same thing as those
caught in the debate over etiquette. It is just more noise and whining. One thing i do not
understand about cousinit’s argument on capitalism being environmentally harmful is; how
can you blame that on capitalism specifically and not on mere human nature? China now
runs on a socialist economy and has been one of the worst countries as far as pollution goes.
it was a closed communist economy and still managed to help destroy the environment.
Furthermore many cases of genocide are not in capitalist countries and are in countries
that do not thrive from other capitalist economies, i.e. North Korea. To blame the worlds
problems on capitalism is not really looking for a solution, it is only using it as a scapegoat.
what cousinit does to capitalism is what he/she has stated that he/she feels others are doing
to him/her in the discussion on internet ettiquette.
I feel capitalism is an economic system built for survival of the strongest. Robert Green
brings this to light in “48 Laws of Power”. Corporate culture is built on power and the pursuit
of power, society in general and values forged from Christianity have helped to strip us
of our desire for power and taught us that it is bad or evil when it is merely natural. What
i feel cousinit is saying is that society should help everyone or that nobody should have the
power that is brought forth by capitalism. This will never happen because people are selfish
and more concerned with themselves than others, and society has once again tried to teach
us that this is bad that selfishness is bad and that we should protect the meek and mild because
they can not protect themselves or create legitimate power for themselves. Capitalism
does the most good for the most people in everyone doing what is best for themselves and
according to Adam Smith the invisible hand evens everything out. another example of a
system other than capitalism failing is in russia in the 1970’s and 80’s the products created
in the communist economy were of such poor quality that economy failed.
so for cousinit i would recommend that if you want to have a discussion and or debate
on how you feel capitalism harms the things you are claiming it harms, then come up with
some facts and specific examples to help others participate in your wanted debate. what
politician enters a debate with the same mundane argument that something is being hurt
without some sort of idea for bettering that issue? According to your last posting you feel
that you don’t need to present one, but if that is the case you are not helping to facilitate a
debate or discussion on the issue you are concerned with. This will cause your arguments to
merely be perceived as pointless bantering.
Good luck with your future debates as to the harmful effects of capitalism
Love Brody
Message [367] referenced by [397] and [404]. Next Message by Brody is [742].
[373] Jeremy: Leveling the playing field. What purpose is served by leveling the playing
field? In the United States, as it is today, we are becoming obsessed with the idea that
fairness is a right granted to every individual. I would like to cite the current mortgage crisis

398 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
as one of many examples of leveling the field. This year, if left untouched by outside forces,
the United States will experience more foreclosures and bankruptcies than any year to date.
Some people gasp at the idea that hundreds of thousands of people will lose the roof over
their head. Others will balk at the thought of interest rate hikes experienced until the recent
months. Then you will have those people who just don’t care what is going on in the housing
market.
The question I would like to pose is, “Did anyone see this coming?” If not, your eyes
were closed, your ears were plugged, and you must have been sitting in a dark room. Over
the past four to five years, the housing market has experienced unprecedented double-digit
increases on a consistent basis. That is not sustainable over the long haul. Locally, a house
that was $100,000 in the year 2002 would easily have fetched $150,000 towards the end of
2006. This was great if you owned a home, but woeful if you were looking to buy. Every
time in history that the market has ballooned in a similar manner, there has always been
a deflation of that same balloon... we’re deflating now. In Utah, we are lucky because the
increases tended to be on the lower end of the pricing scale because our housing market is on
a different level than say California, Florida, etc. During this balloon deflation period, these
people have lost more in home value than most of our homes cost. Here lies the problem.
Because of such a rush to get in on the buying game, we seem to have checked common
sense at the door. Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARM’s), sub-prime lending, even PMI evading
has become all too prevalent. People saw opportunity and decided that it was time to up
the risk to make a buck. The common term “predatory lending” is now being thrown around
to explain the crisis. Very few people going through the housing crunch have been preyed
upon. Drawing upon personal experience, when signing papers for a mortgage, the numbers
are laid out in front of you. Before you sign any paper, you have the option to read it, or better
yet, most mortgage companies have someone there to explain what has been written. If
you have an ARM, the rate schedule is explained and potential payments are covered. There
is little deception in mortgages due to past legislation and the concept of ethical lending.
What we have now are people that couldn’t truly afford the home that they entered into
a contract to purchase, so now comes the time to jump ship. Because people are sheepish
together, many people are in this predicament. What happens when people gather... they
gain attention, and it just happens to be the media and government they are influencing
to get their way. Because of ignorance, these people are now able to skirt their payments,
default on loans, or lock in lower rates all in order to avoid what they should have never done
in the first place... buy something they couldn’t afford. The government will once again step
in to bail out the private sector. Mortgage companies rolled the dice with their risky lending
and came up a loser. If you increase your risk in Las Vegas and come up a loser, you are out
as much as you bet. The type of capitalistic society that is preached is rarely practiced, and
this is just one more example of it. Other examples are the bailout of credit card companies
two years ago, automobile manufactures being given grants to sustain profitability every
year, increasing needless government spending of tax dollars around every corner to cover
the market in one way or another, oh yeah, and the Federal Reserve adjusting rates to correct
what businesses have done wrong.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 399
Competition is good, but it creates a loser now and then. As a society, we need to accept
that some people or companies will lose. We can’t always be found coddling the masses or
we will be weakened as a whole in the end.
Message [373] referenced by [399]. Next Message by Jeremy is [378].
[390] Spawnblade: Immigration, the Economy, and You. And once more immigration
is swamping the paper as people moan and groan on both sides of the argument. Legalize
all immigrants?! Blasphemous! Deport all immigrants?! Blasphemous! Can they not come
to some sort of decision, oh I don’t know... -compromise-?! Our government seems not to
know the meaning of the word. Instead of compromising, they secretly set up deals to sell
their votes to one another, seems inefficient. And in this situation, they can’t exactly sell
their votes.
So then we come to the reasons why I feel a deportation movement like those that are
being initiated in some states is necessary:
1. Illegal immigrants do not pay taxes.
2. If you’ve ever known illegal immigrants, you’d know that many of them are not actually
interested in staying in the United States. (Not so much from Cuba, but from other
Latin American countries, specifically Mexico)
3. Instead of staying in the US, they work night and day for 10 years, return to Mexico
with $200,000 and purchase hotels or other major businesses that allow them to live in
remarkably high comfort conditions. This is possible because of how much cheaper capital
is there.
4. Besides the eventual amount they have saved, they continuously send any extra money
to their home country.
5. Result: 80 wage hours of income per week is sent to another country and removed
completely from the US economy, per person.
Solution: I’ve heard people say Bush has proposed this, but I have not taken the time
to check on the validity of these statements: Offer legalization for any illegal immigrant
holding a job. Anyone who does not seek legalization should be deported because it is clear
they either do not want to pay taxes (most if not all fall into this category.) or they wish to
return to Mexico and they will not be able to as a citizen if they legalize themselves in the
US.
This provides the option for those who are hard workers and a contribution to the US
economy, whereas those who are simply trying to abuse the system while damaging the
economy and bolstering our lovely neighbor’s GDP (and potentially using medicare or other
social services) would be sent back to the country they wish to return to anyway.
Quicknotes version:
If someone, anyone, wishes to benefit a country, they should be allowed to remain there
and do so.
If someone, anyone, wishes to simply use a country for their own benefit, the country has
no reason to allow them to do so.

400 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Message [390] referenced by [400] and [414]. Next Message by Spawnblade is [413].
[392] Rey: Generalziations involving Immigration, the Economy and You! I would
suggest you broaden your association with illegal immigrants before you start running your
mouth and generalizing! I myself have had a fair amount of experience with the matter.
In fact I have seen the efforts my own sister had to go through to become a citizen of the
United States. She was born in Guatemala and came to the United States legally when she
was adopted into our family. She spent a good portion of her adult life fighting her way
through the red tape that blocks hard working, ethical immigrants from becoming legal.
Now I recognize this particular situation is somewhat different then the issue you seem to be
addressing. I only reference it because I have seen the strain and effort that is necessary to
become legal in this country, even when having pure intentions. In addition to my own sister
I have met several hard working individuals who have a desire to do live their lives legally
within the United States. Not to provide any excuses, but indeed provide understanding, the
process is long and difficult. In fact I would venture to say most Americans couldn’t even
pass the written exam necessary to become a legal citizen of the United States. Don’t get
me wrong by no means am I an advocate for amnesty or open boarders, but I do believe
a change needs to be made that will simply the process for “good intentioned” immigrants
to become American Citizens. It is my experience that a majority of immigrants do have a
desire to become legal, but they know that the process is long and expensive.
In addition I think it to be a little extreme to think that the majority of illegal immigrants
abuse the system in the manner you have described. I would challenge you to present a
resource for your conclusion. Also the entire 80 hours of wages leaving the country is an
absurd generalization once again, seeing as these individuals do have to have some means
of living while they are here in the United States.
Lastly while we are on the subject of stripping GDP from one country and injecting it to
another country. I would suggest you do a little research along the lines of how the US has
been able to change and distort foreign tax laws for the same purpose. One place to start
would be to examine Paul Bremer’s (head of reconstruction in Iraq) Order #39.
Although your “Quicknote” presents a logical case, your path to that conclusion is irrational
and full of generalizations.
Message [392] referenced by [413]. Next Message by Rey is [493].
[395] Srichardson: Immigration. I see that there is a need for change in the way that we
deal with immigration in this country. When reading both spawnblade and Reys comments
I see myself siding with Rey on the point that it does need to be easier for immigrants to
be legal. I also think that since most of us are econ majors it is important to look at the
economical effect that these immigrants have on our nation. When Spawnblade says that
illegal immigrants do not pay tax’s it reminded me of an article that I have read for another
class, the Urban Institute put out a paper with the myths about illegal immigrants this is what
they had to say about immigrants paying taxes
Undocumented immigrants pay the same real estate taxes—whether they own homes or
taxes are passed through to rents—and the same sales and other consumption taxes as everyone
else. The majority of state and local costs of schooling and other services are funded by
these taxes. Additionally, the U.S. Social Security Administration has estimated that three

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 401
quarters of undocumented immigrants pay payroll taxes, and that they contribute $6–7 billion
in Social Security funds that they will be unable to claim. Some of this information
was from Porter, Eduardo. 2005. “Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security with
Billions.” New York Times, April 5.
I think it is very important to think of these things when talking about immigration, while
I know that there is different studies that say all different things about immigration but it is
important to look into these things.
Message [395] referenced by [400] and [413]. Next Message by Srichardson is [417].
[397] CousinIt: The golden rule. In response to [367].
The point of this course, as I understand it, is not to come up with the solution to capitalism,
but to understand what capitalism is. How can we even begin to address the problems
if, as a collective, we don’t even understand the material conditions of our own existence?
(But we all know that Marx is just an evil ‘pinko’ and a raging lunatic, that’s why he is so
easy to understand, huh?)
The ‘human nature’ argument doesn’t really hold water. The term ‘human nature’ is just a
‘stand-in’ term that we use to describe something that we cannot point to, define, or explicate
sufficiently. Like ‘gravity,’ as a term we use as a stand in for something that we do not know
exactly ‘what it is,’ we use ‘human nature’ to stand for something that we do not understand
so that we can talk about things and make the kinds of claims made in [367] without being
required to prove their validity. It is conventionally assumed that we all know what we are
talking about and agree on a definition that does not exist when in reality, we really don’t
know, but need to use the stand-in terms as provisional place-holders in order to move things
along a particular path.
I do not buy that it is ‘human nature’ to exploit and mow-over the weak and underprivileged
any more than I believe that capitalism is the ‘natural’ pinnacle of human socioeconomic
acheivement. To accept such absurdities as warrrant for the defense of capitalism
is to say that we should just take anything we want anytime anywhere from anybody who
isn’t strong enough to keep us from taking it. According to this plan we should mow-over
the deaf, dumb, blind, physically/mentally handicapped, the sick, the poor, old people and
children, take whatever we want from anyone who we are stronger than and deprive them of
things/social goods that they cannot secure for themselves and send them packing off to hell
for being less capable of violence and theft than we are. The frightening thing is that alot of
people with this kind of orientation to humanity, who imagine that they are capitalists also
believe they are Christians, as well! Comical? ...or tragic?
Guess what the precursory socio-economic conditions to Hitler’s fascism were.....?
To use forms of state-capitalism (like China and Russia) as examples to warrant some
notion that socialism is a failed concept is as absurd (to the educated socialist) as saying
that apples are not apples because they aren’t oranges. Not only do we need to understand
capitalism, but also alternative forms. For example, some folks don’t know that socialism
isn’t socialism unless everyone is doing it, which has never been tried.
Why can’t socialism succeed as an economic system without everyone doing it?

402 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Because it will do things not just for profit, but because they are the right things to do,
which sometimes ends up costing money in the name of social gains, rather than produciing
profit. It doesn’t base its notions of prosperity and social wealth on theft and exploitation
and will therefore always be outrun by capitalism that doesn’t pause to consider such trivialities
as collective well-being for all living creatures (That would be a weakness according
to the ‘survival of the fittest’ crowd, I suppose). By the way, the Chinese have always been
capitalist businessmen to some degree (This might also be some kind of response to [363]’s
question about communism...we haven’t tried it yet because we can’t even get to the prerequisite
socialism part, as of yet....the wall of ignorance is too thick and wide...).
Try to imagine that only everyone in China and Russia (and not the rest of the world’s
population) demand the same kind of standard of living/lifestyle that Americans have enjoyed
and don’t want to have any restrictions on polluting the environment that Americans
didn’t have during the initial stages of industrialization. Imagine that they want to be able to
consume, pollute, and throw away garbage at the same rate as Americans do, including oil,
food, water...everything. How far do you think that kind of stress on the planet’s resources
can be sustained?
I don’t need to know exactly what to do to know that what I am doing is wrong. I don’t
need to have the right solution to know that the one I am attempting is failing.
I wonder if Brody will be so fond of his ‘survival of the fittest’ theory/orientation to
human relations when the Chinese call in the debt and decide to come and take from us what
we aren’t strong enough to hold on to? Live by the sword, die by the sword. Haven’t we
learned anything about what that kind of hard-guy cowboy knee-deep-in-bullstance gets us?
Maybe not. Maybe it’s time we learned that lesson, eh?
Ok, how about the ‘golden rule’ as a starting point for a solution? That is, “Do unto
others as you would have them do unto you.”
Gee, I wonder why those darn ‘terrorists’ hate us?
Next Message by CousinIt is [446].
[399] Bmellor: Destroying the playing field so no one can play? In response to [373]
Leveling the playing field?
In the attempt to “level the playing field” historical examples suggest you will instead
destroy “the playing field” by putting up a fence that people do not want to “play with” or
“around.” You can still make socialism-like policy in a capitalist society, proving that most
socialist policy doesn’t work. It has been done before even here in the United States, and I
am not talking about Social Security. Should the government force gas prices down if gas
gets too expensive? Think about the fuel crisis of the 70’s... the government tried to control
the prices and a shortage of fuel took place. In more recent history Hugo Chavez (a leftist
capitalist) tried to make it government policy to control food prices. Good luck finding a
place to buy milk or beef in Venezuela, his polict created a shortage of food. Markets have
to make decisions for themselves they are a “living thing” like unto a wild beast. You cannot
keep it caged within certain perimeters, should you do so the result will be a violent reaction
or the system will curl up and die.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 403
People must have incentives to work and produce, an “even playing field” doesn’t work.
I have witnessed firsthand the horrible living conditions that the production of sugar has
forced on the people in South America. I would go so far as to not buy sugar from the
companies that treated those people I met that way, (good luck finding out where that sugar
went.) Would I get on a plane to South America, touring the continent to encourage and
convince those people to rise up against their “capitalist oppressor?” There was one man in
recent history that tried to do just that, Ernesto “Che” Guevara. No doubt if you don’t know
who Ernesto “Che” Guevara is, surely you have seen his chiaroscuro portrait on a t-shirt. Che
took his (and Fidel Castro’s) socialist ideas across South America and ended in Bolivia. In
Bolivia the people Che was trying to “free” turned on him, they wanted to live the way they
had been living, under a capitalist system. The result? “Che” died in Bolivia. If people don’t
like the way they are living in the conditions they are living it is the responsibilities of those
who are being afflicted to fight to fix things. This was true of American steel workers of the
past, and is still true of the coal miners in Utah. There are few who should get a government
“hand out” and those are the disabled, the people who can’t physically or mentally work, the
elderly, and young children. This is the only way to assure against “free riders.” That is as
fair as you are going to get.
“But what if I want to sit at home and play the guitar all day, or paint a picture instead of
going to the factory to work?” You can! If you’re good enough that someone wants to pay
you for it. If not, you starve until you are good enough, or get a job at the factory. Then
you can paint and play guitar in your free time. This is how we live, working is awful at
times, but imagine the alternative. A revert back to primal living sounds just great, fresh air,
mountain living until you think about how cold it is in the winter and 30-35 years old is your
life expectancy.
Next Message by Bmellor is [408].
[400] Brandon: Immigration. In response to Srichardson [395] and Spawnblade [390].
I think that Spawnblade started his argument correctly by stating the flaws with the two
extreme proposals to regulate illegal immigration. Immediate legalization is unfair to the
legal immigrant seeking work in the US by going through the proper channels only to lose
that job to someone who jumped the fence and cut to the front of the line. Also, immediate
deportation in this country would be a major strain on our economy as well as our resources
(i.e., law enforcement, judicial system, etc).
In [395] Srichardson implies that illegal immigrants in fact benefit our own economy
through real estate taxes (which are paid by the landlords via rent) as well as contributing
to the Social Security fund. However, the American taxpayer still has to pay the bill every
time an illegal immigrant needs to seek medical care, put a child into the education system,
or even during imprisonment.
The Center for Immigration Studies filed a report that found that in 2002 alone, the
illegal population created a fiscal deficit - at the federal level - of just over $10 billion
(http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html). Keep in mind, this deficit is an after-tax
report. This means that, even though they do pay “some” taxes, they are still a drain on the

404 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
taxpaying American or legal resident who must make up the difference. Here are a few items
the report found:
“1. Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the
federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of
almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
2. Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2
billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9
billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4
billion).
3. With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary
reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and
tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services. (www.cis.org)”
The other problem, as Spawnblade pointed out, is that most of the wages earned by illegal
immigrants are sent back to their native country and benefit that country’s economy.
I come from an immigrant family, my father left his home in Malaysia went to college
in India, and eventually was offered a job in the United States. He filed all the necessary
paperwork, received a resident alien card and is now a permanent resident. Because of his
actions, he pays all of his taxes and is able to benefit from many social programs that illegals
may not. I understand the lines are currently long, primarily for Latin American immigrants,
to be come a legal resident in US, but for some reason we feel that is valid cause for breaking
our immigration and labor laws to accommodate these individuals who inevitably drain our
economy. I do not buy the argument that “they do the work we don’t want to do”. That is a
cop-out and an excuse which is fueling our already growing apathy in this country towards
low-income labor. Trust me, if the illegal immigrants were never here, someone would be
doing those jobs. They sure as hell would not be happy about it, but when you have to ‘put
food on the table’, the job will be done.
I do not have a great solution to this immigration problem, but I do have a solution and
it has been presented many times. I know most of you have heard of this, but I will explain
it in more detail using another country which already has utilized this method. The method
being, guest worker program. I want to give a personal example of my Aunt Usha living in
Malaysia. She is middle-class and married with two children. Like the U.S., many immigrants
work in service industries and low-skilled labor and most of these immigrants come
from Indonesia. The Malaysian government has offices in hundreds of cities in Indonesia
where a worker can apply for a worker’s card and will be assigned a job in Malaysia. Now
in the case of my Aunt, she currently has a maid who performs all of the housekeeping
duties, as well as, looking after the children while my Aunt and Uncle are at work (this is
very common in South Asian countries). Bi-monthly my Aunt must pay her a fixed wage as
determined by the government. However, she cannot pay the immigrant directly, instead she
must send the check to the department of labor, who then takes out the necessary taxes such
as medical, social security, etc., and then deposits the worker’s income in a bank account
back in Indonesia. This is to ensure fair pay of the worker and also makes sure that proper
taxes have been paid to the state.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 405
Because of this system, there lacks an incentive for immigrants to smuggle themselves
into the country to find work. They know that through their worker cards, they will receive
fair, consistent wages, medical coverage, and will be able to support their families still living
in their native country. When their time of work has expired, they will return to their
country having made more money than could have ever been achieved without emigrating.
Furthermore, they now have little cause to emigrate again, for they have been afforded the
ability and experience to open their own business in their home country, hire local workers,
and further benefit themselves and their economy.
I am not saying this is the best solution, but it definitely fulfills all needs from both parties
and creates mutually beneficial exchanges at both the individual and federal levels.
Message [400] referenced by [402] and [414]. Next Message by Brandon is [414].
[402] PrivateProperty: Immigration. Brandon [400] cites a report by the Center for Immigration
Studies (CIS) in order to support the argument that illegal immigrants are a drain
on our economy. The figures are sobering, but do they mean anything? CIS is just another
think tank, and like all think tanks, it exists for the advancement of someone’s agenda. In
its mission statement the CIS says it “...seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for
those admitted.” We all know that you can conduct studies in various ways in order to get
the results you are looking for. Statistics can be vague, depending on the methodology used.
I do not believe CIS for a second. If such a study were published by a State University or
some independent task force without an agenda, then I would be willing to look at it more
closely.
Even if the data meant something, let’s take a step back here and ask ourselves a fundamental
question: Who are we to be so stringent in deciding who can come into the country?
The United States is a relatively young country, and only a few hundred years ago there
was nobody but Native Americans picking berries up and down the Eastern Seaboard. Unless
you are descended from Natives, you are in America today because of immigration. These
immigrants came for the same reason Mexicans are immigrating illegally today, for a new
life, for opportunity. The only reason we deem so many of these immigrants ‘illegal’ is that
America has had over 300 years to develop institutions that continually serve to protect the
pie at home.
The ‘issue’ with illegal aliens in the country is really just a legal distinction and not much
of an issue at all. The real problems lie with how these people are socialized into America.
If anything, these people need to be treated with more respect and openness. It is not right
for these individuals to be relegated to the fringes of society. While it is the duty of illegals
to integrate themselves better into US society, it is also the duty of the American people and
government to make this integration easier.
Message [402] referenced by [413] and [414]. Next Message by PrivateProperty is [404].
[403] Bar: Capitalism. Marxists, Communists, and Socialists all say that the system is
broken, and for the most part, they say the system is broken without giving any ideas to
how to solve the problems associated with replacing capitalism. I am a capitalist and believe
that this system eventually will solve all of the problems in society through technology. For
example, Capital in every aspect, will become so efficient, practical, and cheap, that almost
all manual labor will be eliminated. An evidence of this is how the majority of jobs in our

406 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
society have already gone from labor intensive to capital intensive, look at farmers where
in colonial times the majority of people were farmers; only 1% of Americans are farmers
today. In addition, less and less people work in manufacturing jobs, the majority of people
45% work in service information industries now. Food, is abundant in the world and cheap(if
socialist farmers didn’t rip off America with farm subsidies would be so much cheaper)
and the only reason famines exist in areas of Africa and other underdeveloped countries
is because of market inefficiencies and corrupt governments. Capitalism is ever evolving;
it becomes more efficient and solves many problems that government cannot solve. For
example, the fallacious idea that capitalism hurts the environment or it’s the systems fault
for problems in the environment is by far, the dumbest, 1-dimentional argument I have every
heard, and I am dumber for having entertained the idea. The market doesn’t create choices
and preferences it reflects the tastes and preferences of society as a whole. Just because
someone sells it doesn’t mean you have to buy it, and if you didn’t buy it, the market would
stop selling it.
I argue that capitalism is good for the environment because of the simple principle of
inferior goods and substitute goods. The best example of this is the new hybrid cars and
flexfuel cars, and alternative fuel. These thing were talked about for years, and we’ve know
about the problems of global warming for years, but the problem has not been addressed
until oil increased from $1 in the nineties(when gas companies barley made any profit at all)
to $3+(where everybody has a heart attack because they finally turn a profit) The market is
solving the problem of carbon emissions not through regulation, not because the government
put a gun to my head and said don’t use oil or I’ll kill you, but because of an increase
in demand for oil. Education on the matter even has changed our tastes and preferences:
recycling, conserving electricity, using our car less is working and companies are filling
this demand with, for example, new more efficient light bulbs. These changes have taken
place with little or no obligation from the government, granted a new car gas regulation was
recently passed, but these changes had already taken place, the government is already behind
on everything and some actually want to increase the size of government?
Since the industrial revolution, the standard of living has increased in almost every country
in the world, medical advances and the average life expectancy has increased more than
any other time in the world. Knowledge and technology increase at an exponential rate. All
this is due to Capitalism since the industrial revolution; in that short amount of time all these
great and wonderful things have taken place. Not under feudalism (which has many similar
characteristics to socialism and communism) and mercantilism, which used central planning
in the government to control trade. The reason that these things have happened under capitalism
is because capitalism creates a more equitable economy and more freedom through
choice, yeah you heard me right Marxists, more equitable!
I challenge all the socialists in this class to prove me wrong, by not attacking capitalism,
but by showing how socialism would be better than capitalism in the following areas:
Free Rider Problems
Special Interest Groups (you can’t just say, “get rid of corporations” that’s not a solution;
replace it with what?)

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 407
Freedom (when everything is centrally planned how you can lessen corruption and government
Stalinism for example)
Incentives the workforce to work productively
Message [403] referenced by [404]. Next Message by Bar is [765].
[404] PrivateProperty: Capitalist Competition: An Unnecessary Struggle. I think it is
a moronic paradigm to separate our arguments into a Capitalism v. Marxism battle in which
there can only be one victor. It is not a zero-sum game like many of us think. The current
framework we live in is Capitalism, and there is no point in denying or resisting that fact.
That being said, as no system is perfect, what harm can there be in seeing what Marxism has
to offer?
Capitalism is a necessary phase of the human condition, and it has produced spectacular
results. As Bar mentions in [403], the institutions of capitalism have played an important
role in the development of technology and explosions in productivity growth across a wide
number of industries, as well as the spawning of new ones. However, there comes a time
when it is necessary to pause, take a step back, and ask why the system does what it does.
Capitalism is a system in which the market is the dominant institution, and all other institutions
are clustered around it. This might surprise some, but capitalism is a relatively new
phenomenon in human history. It evolved out of mercantilist practices of European powers
from the 1500-1700s. Prior to these developments, an economy was a socially relegated
institution. Social relations determined who supplied what and what prices were charged.
Most everything was produced in individual households. Compared to our current production
in America, this system was wildly inefficient. With time it would be necessary for
a new system to evolve, which indeed came with the Industrial Revolutions in the 1800s,
bringing production away from households and consolidating it into the factory system we
recognize today. Now America has a GDP no one would have thought possible.
The stark truth is that capitalism today is a sick and violent way of relating with your
fellow man. Each one of us is caught up with his or her individual struggle to survive in the
jungle that is the US economy. With all the advancements we have made, one would think
that our society would also be more integrative and cohesive. Instead, we find ourselves vying
for position in corporate America, where one’s success often comes at another’s expense.
Competition not only has significance in business parlance, but extends into our social relations,
our very existence. Competition is tension, pain, and suffering, mediated through
business. Our system is fundamentally violent.
Brody in [367] asserts that it is human selfishness that creates capitalism. However, it is
capitalism that creates human selfishness. People are not choosing to be one way or another.
It is the pre-existing structure that determines the behavior of the people. If we happened to
live in a society that reinforced social cohesion and cooperation, we would be acting in quite
different ways.
It is very hard, some would say impossible, to detach ourselves from the very system we
grew up in. But this detachment, this true awareness of our social relations, is necessary in
order for change to take place.
Next Message by PrivateProperty is [447].

408 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
[413] Spawnblade: “Generalizations” on Immigration revisited. The following post is
brought to you by: “Line breaks and paragraph spacing are your friends.”
And now to continue:
I would like to begin by responding to Rey’s [392] post, and perhaps “run my mouth” a
bit more.
The first comment of note is “I myself have had a fair experience with the matter. In
fact I have seen the efforts my own sister had to go through to become a citizen of the
United States.” Then continues to explain that she was born in Guatemala and came to the
US legally.
Yes Rey, this situation is completely different. I believe that makes her legal, yes? As you
said. Now you say there was a remarkable amount of strain and effort to become legal. Yes,
yes there is. Should there be? No, no there shouldn’t.
I believe in my post I stated that the current system is not fair to illegal immigrants,
since really legal immigrants aren’t a concern, are they? My post suggested a method of
legalizing illegal immigrants, the ones that benefit our economy. Now does it even matter if
I were to actually specify a particular percentage of the population? No, not really, because
I generalized and said anyone that will pay taxes and work for the betterment of our society
deserves to be a citizen.
Yet for some reason you bashed my ‘generalization’ and went on to speak of the difficulties
of becoming legal, etc... Did you read my post? I will assume so, but your post really
indicates that you stopped at the header where I presented the current debate.
Do I think that anyone that isn’t willing (They do not have to be presently) to contribute to
the country should be deported? Yes. Does this include people who are willing to go through
a standardized legalization process if a system were to be implemented? No, I would very
much like to have people with such a work ethic in our society, it could only be a benefit
to us. I believe I made this quite clear despite my animosity towards those who abuse the
system. And I would like to point out any statistics that I could find for you on how many
actually would or would not pay taxes are pointless. If they were to survey every illegal
immigrant, that would require knowing who was illegal or legal, and furthermore would
require the person to tell the truth. I base my analysis on word of mouth on a second-hand
basis from managers in the food industry.
If you didn’t have to pay taxes, would you?
Please next time read my post, and if you did and I simply didn’t clarify my words enough,
then I apologize and I will try to make it more obvious next time.
In regards to Srichardson [395], I wish to clarify that I would like legalization to be
possible for illegal immigrants. As far as legalization in general, I haven’t looked into that
so I am unaware of the difficulties.
However in response to the points on real estate tax/sales tax/SS tax, these are very good
points, and I shall address them individually:

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 409
1. Real estate - Generally illegal immigrants live collectively. That is they live in large
family-like communities with 15 or so compromising a condominium or multiple cells near
each other in other residential housing. IE. three condos each with 2-3 times the amount of
people that might normally live there. I searched for exact statistics with no luck, so I’m
basing my knowledge on prior/outdated tv news reports from the deportation policies that
were put into place in Florida (I believe.)
2. Sales Tax - Yep, don’t have much to say on this one. It is a good point, except for the
states that don’t have a sales tax. Though generally no sales tax means a higher real estate
tax.
3. Social Security Tax - We know at least 6.2% is taken from the employers for their
wages. I -believe- most businesses have the amounts automatically taken from the employees
pay checks as well. However, is that -always- the case, is it required by law? And luckily
Srichardson answered this by noting that it is estimated three quarters pay these taxes.
In regards to that though, assuming all illegal immigrants pay 6.2, and their employers
pay 6.2, that would be 12.4% of their total wages. Now taking the figures that Srichardson
provided: 6-7 billion in social security.for 3/4s of illegal immigrants. We can figure the total
income from a third party’s information (to address PrivateProperty’s concern of using the
CIS studies.) to be 64.5-75.3 billion.
So according to a reverse engineer of the Social Security Administrations figures on “Social
Security Boosting”, the U.S. is receiving 6-7 billion in social security, and having 58-69
billion disappear. A safe estimate is that 30-35 billion is siphoned to other countries. Though
it is clear that the benefits to children that are born here are quite straining on the economy
as well. However I personally don’t have a problem with -that- since I believe those losses
are an investment for the future.
Lastly I would like to respond to PrivateProperty’s [402] comments on the validity of the
Center for Immigration Studies. Assuming that CIS is wrong, I simply wished to readdress
the data from the “Social Security Boosting” article that was initially written to be proimmigration,
or at least to give the ‘bright side’ of things. I would also like to add that
statistics from third parties that require surveys are just as useless as potentially biased data.
In response as to why we shouldn’t just allow anyone in the country... I used to ask myself
that question, until I realized just how many people would like to come to the U.S. I imagine
our country’s population could jump 10% within two years if that was allowed. I believe the
actual numbers would be much higher however. Thinking of the logistics problems is a pain
as well since most of them would not be spread out across the country.
In regards to the ‘hard’ factor of immigration. The system makes it quite easy for Western
Europeans to come to this country and get citizenship. I imagine you could factor in
Australians as well. I don’t have the actual statistics of the quotas, but if I recall the process
is easier, and the allowed amounts are much higher. We spoke on this in history in high
school, where the quotas were adjusted several times throughout history. I believe the last
major adjustment occurred to prevent both “communists” and asians to come because of the
fear of spies (due to World War II, and the subsequent Cold War... relations were obviously
quite poor.) I could be wrong, and most likely an alteration has occurred since then. As far

410 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
as the latin american countries go (As to which this most applies,) my main belief is that the
politicians who set the quotas simply don’t want people who aren’t like them from coming
to this country.
I personally believe we do in fact need quotas, but I believe they should be a percentage
ratio to give people the ‘equal opportunity’ our country so promises.
Now... time for bed.
Next Message by Spawnblade is [437].
[414] Brandon: Immigration. I thought initially I would give my two cents on this issue
and move along, but I have to respond to this post.
Respectfully, it seems to me that PrivateProperty [402] latched onto one element of my
post regarding the data I used and disregarded the rest of what I had to say, which was really
the essence of what I was trying to articulate (see second half of [400] ).
We could go on and on regarding the “validity” of statistics and where they originate.
Whether they are biased or not, or whether they came from a credible source of information.
Agree or disagree with the Center for Immigration Studies’ mission statement, this is an
organization which has devoted over 20 years to collecting data on immigration pertaining
to the US and the effects caused by it (good and bad). If we are to say that there exists an
organization that will conduct a study without any form of bias or agenda then we must be
completly ignorant. Even at the University level there exist biased researchers and professors
who produce papers and data based around their own personal beliefs. It is so rare that we
will ever find a statistic that is not biased.
Ok, I’m done with that debate. I agree that the CIS may have an agenda but I do not
discredit them. Nor do I discredit the report regarding illegal immigrants and their contributions
to Social Security. However, we all use statistics to bolster our arguments, but the
ones we use usually leave out other relevant data that may contradict them. Case in point,
Srichardson’s source vs. mine.
Moving on I want to address the issue in PrivateProperty’s comment:
“Who are we to be so stringent in deciding who can come into the country? The United
States is a relatively young country, and only a few hundred years ago there was nobody but
Native Americans picking berries up and down the Eastern Seaboard.”
This truly is apples and oranges (not that this cliché hasn’t been beaten to death in this
class). I’m not trying to be callous here, but you are taking a moment in history where a
group of people left their established, native countries to seek land where they could create
their own communities, eventually nation(s). Yes there were Native Americans living on the
continent when they arrived but this is not the same as if they were to land on an established
piece of land that was under the rule of a sovereign nation. There did not exist a unified,
regulated government entity that controlled the lands and had authority to grant or deny
entry. (Obviously I am playing Devil’s advocate here from the perspective of the colonists.)
The case today is that we live in a country that is civilized and has a intricate structure of
laws and regulations to protect our economy, as well as, our national security. To sit here
and use the example of, ’well, we did it to the Native Americans so who are we to say the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 411
illegals can’t come in’ is absurd. Was anyone here alive or commit any atrocities against
Native Americans in the name of creating a sovereign state apart from England? No. I am
so sick of people living in the past and using it as an excuse to deal with modern problems.
We have a problem at hand regarding a massive inflow of illegal immigrants, which will
only continue to rise unless some form of viable regulation is implemented. But for some
reason we hide behind 300 year old ideology and actions as a way of trying to justify illegal
actions of others in our ever growing P.C. world. I have already proposed what solutions I
believe should be implemented [400] so I will not repeat it.
Also, PrivateProperty states: “Unless you are descended from Natives, you are in America
today because of immigration.” He’s right. I am first generation Malaysian-American of
Indian decent. However, somehow my dad was able to file the necessary papers, wait for
the processes to clear their chain of command, and entered the country legally. He worked
here legally for 30 years, paid his taxes, put his children through school, and gave them a
better life than any Indian-blooded Malaysian can achieve in his native land. Sounds like the
general motive of any immigrant right? However, as Spawnblade pointed out in [390] most
current illegal immigrants from Latin America (primarily Mexico) have figured out that because
of our flawed system of regulation, they can simply abuse our labor and immigration
laws to support themselves and their families back home at the expense of US citizens and
legal residents. THIS is the problem. I have no objection to anyone who has the courage
to attempt to better their lives by leaving their home land to another that can provide more
opportunities for themselves and their families. At the same time, if they are not willing to
legally enter the latter country and abide by the laws of said nation, they have no right to
enter or reside. I don’t think anyone would like it if I said, ‘my life sucks. my girlfriend
beats me, she takes my money. my apartment sucks. The ceiling is cracked, the shower
leaks, so I am going to break into your nice home, plop down in your spare bedroom, watch
your big TV, and not even ask your permission to do these things nor will i pay my share of
rent.’ This is a crude argument, but I think it paints a pretty applicable picture.
Ok, its 3:00 am and I’m sick of ranting. PrivateProperty, do not think I was in anyway
trying to personally attack you, but simply the ideology of your post. I mean c’mon we’re
group members right!? haha. g’night all.
Message [414] referenced by [425]. Next Message by Brandon is [499].
[420] Alex: Comments on immigration. Immigration has become such a devisive issue,
there must be more to the subject than what is on the surfaces. National security has become
a shield for the weak to hide behind. National security does not play into the real analysis
of this divisive issue. National security is the only realistic argument that can be made for
immigration. Economics is not means for discrimintation, immigrants are the backbone of
our economy.
Those opposed to immigration need to state the real reasons: hate and class creation. If
those opposed to immigration actually spoke the truth they talk about how they don’t want
immigrants living in their neighborhoods and attending the same schools as their children.
They would talk about how they think immigrants are inferior and should be kept out. Some
nations have even taken discrimination to “scientific” levels. The Germans have long been
strict on immigration. Hitler marked the way with his “studies” that showed the Jews were

412 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
inferior. Today Germany is still strict on immigration allowing very few to stay in the County
for more than a few months.
I wonder why so many are against letting others into the county. Borders, after all, were
constructed by man in the first place.
Message [420] referenced by [425]. Next Message by Alex is [436].
[425] Matt: Illegal Immigration – a good thing? I agree with Brandon [414] that we
Americans do indeed have the right to protect our borders from those coming over illegally.
I loved Brandon’s example in his last paragraph that says, “. . . my apartment sucks. The
ceiling is cracked, the shower leaks, so I am going to break into your nice home, plop down
in your spare bedroom, watch your big TV, and not even ask your permission to do these
things nor will I pay my share of rent.” We have the right to protect our borders just as much
as we do our houses. We pay 30% of our paychecks in taxes so we can enjoy the society in
which we have built.
So why don’t we crack down on Illegal immigration by protecting our borders? The truth
is we have. Even though the United States is protecting its borders by policing them, it is
with minimal effects. Since the Mexico border is so large, most illegal immigrants take the
small chance of being apprehended to have a chance at a better life by participating in our
growing economy. Mexican farm workers are able to earn seven to ten times as much in the
United States as at home. The truth is that Illegal Immigrants get jobs over native workers
because they are willing to work for less causing our unemployment rates to increase.
After doing some research I found an article by Adam Davidson, “Illegal Immigrants
and the U.S. Economy”, that says the labor supply increased between 1980 and 2000 from
immigration, which reduced the average annual earnings of U.S. citizen men by an estimated
$1,700 or roughly 4 percent. And the impact was even larger for those born in the United
States who did not graduate from high school (the poorest one-tenth of the work force)
reducing wages by 7.4 percent. This reduction in earnings occurred regardless of whether
the immigrants were legal or illegal. It is the presence of additional workers that reduces
wages, not their legal status. So what would happen if we were to reduce the inflow of illegal
immigrants? Well, according to Davidson it is predicted that a dramatic change would occur
if illegal immigration is drastically truncated. “Supporters of a crackdown argue that the
U.S. economy would benefit if illegal immigrants were to leave, because U.S. employers
would be forced to raise wages to attract American workers. Critics of this approach say
the loss of illegal immigrants would stall the U.S. economy, saying undocumented workers
do many jobs few native-born Americans will do.” So as the supply of low-skilled workers
increases causing wages to go down, we Americans benefit since we end up paying lower
prices for things like; restaurant meals, agricultural produce and construction.
A recent estimate from the Council of Economic Advisors was done, and as a whole,
immigrants (not just illegal immigrants) add about $37 billion per year to the United States
economy. Illegal immigrants add to our economy through the savings they provide through
their low wages. They are willing to work just as hard as an American born citizen for less.
If you were a farmer and you could hire me for $11.50 per hour or an Illegal immigrant for
$7.50, who would you hire? That’s an easy question, right? You would hire the lower paying
wage worker as it puts more money in your pocket. Agricultural economists have estimated

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 413
that without illegal workers, the retail cost of fresh produce would increase about 3 percent
in the summer-fall season and less than 2 percent in the winter-spring season.
Illegal immigrants have carved a place for themselves as temporary workers on the fringes
of the industry. In urban areas like New York and Los Angeles, these mostly male illegal
immigrants gather on street corners, in empty lots to sell their labor by the hour or the day
for $7-11 an hour. Because so many of our legal and illegal immigrant labor is concentrated
in such fringe, low-wage employment, its overall impact on our economy is extremely small.
A 1997 National Academy of Sciences study estimated that immigration’s net benefit to the
American economy raises the average income of the native-born by only some $10 billion
a year—about $120 per household. And that meager contribution is not the result of immigrants
helping to build our essential industries or making us more competitive globally, but
instead merely delivering our pizzas and cutting our grass. Illegal Immigrant workers certainly
do take jobs that would otherwise go to legal workers. But these jobs are often some
of the country’s least attractive, such as: meat packing, janitorial, construction and agriculture.
If there weren’t workers available for those jobs, native born workers would have to do
them. So by taking the jobs that we don’t want, they are actually giving Americans an economic
boost by allowing us to focus on the highly skilled/ non-farm jobs. Illegal emigrants
are doing more for our economy then we give them credit for, and I think we all owe them a
little more respect then what has been shown. So as Alex says in [420], “immigrants are the
backbone to our economy.”
Next Message by Matt is [443].
[433] Hans: Why does Obama seem to be rolling toward the White House? The
following essay posted by Joaquin Bustelo to the Marxism list today gives probably some
of the best thinking among Marxists and Progressives about the election campaign. I can
recommend the Marxism list if you want to read about or discuss political issues from a
Marxist angle. See
Hans.
http://www.marxmail.org/index.htm
Here is Joaquin’s essay:
Fred Feldman wrote:
“It seems to me that sometime after Super Tuesday, a substantial sector of
the ruling class swung to the idea of giving Obama the Democratic nomination
and electing him president? The campaign of Hilary Clinton, who
seemed to have the mandate of heaven for quite a while, suddenly became
like a doomed Lost Patrol.”
“Super Tuesday could have been used by the mainstream to rev up the Clinton
campaign and protect the basic status quo of bourgeois politics. After
all, she won New York and California. How these things get interpreted
allows room for the media barons to choose emphases. It did not have to be
interpreted as a draw. Instead, they used it to set up the Clinton collapse.”

414 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
I think Fred’s description of deliberations by some ruling class collegium –even if meant
only metaphorically– don’t do enough justice to the relative autonomy and randomness of
things in the week-to-week coverage of the presidential campaign. Especially when a disruptive
element that breaks previous patterns enters the scene, like Barack Obama, and whatever
swell from the deep he’s succeeded in riding in his campaign.
Being involved in the coverage of super-Tuesday, I’ll tell you why so much of the tone
on TV was pro-Obama. Because he won, and won well in places where he was expected to
barely squeak by, and even in some he was expected to lose.
California was Hillary’s sole bright spot. But California was the last state in having polls
close (at 11 pm eastern). And the early exit poll results in California fit the pattern: they
showed Obama losing, but by a narrow margin, doing better than expected. It was not until
the final wave of the exit poll came in sometime after 11 pm Eastern that it started to become
clear that Obama would not do better than expected in California, but it was only AFTER
adjustment based on actual precinct results, which didn’t take place until two or three hours
later, that the full extent of Clinton’s strong California showing became clear.
However, the margin of Hillary’s victory was due overwhelmingly to the Latino vote,
both that it was so heavily for her and that is was so high, almost double in percentage
terms the Latino turnout in the previous two Democrat presidential primaries. It was like a
deus-ex-machina and thus hard to figure into calculations for the ongoing campaign.
This highlights something that’s been an issue with both pre-contest and exit polls this
year. They’ve been off. That’s because the polling is designed to capture a representative
sample of the voters (or likely voters, in the case of pre-election polls). With a markedly different
electorate, the polls are not capturing a sample that is really representative of THESE
voters.
The electorate –especially in the Democratic Party race– is DIFFERENT. Turnouts have
been unprecedented, especially among young people and Blacks. A lot of this is associated
with Obama.
But I would argue that the California Latino vote shows that this phenomenon is bigger
than Obama, and indeed Obama’s tremendous success is based on his having been able
to somehow channel or come to represent to people or embody for people that political
motion/desire that is driving them to the polls in unprecedented numbers for this kind of
race.
It is not just that people are sick of politics as usual in Washington, the gridlock and
scandals, the things you read in the paper now and again about gazillion-dollar handouts
to corporations and so on. This is the 10th national election cycle that I’ve been deeply
involved in the coverage, and it is ALWAYS true that regular people are sick of Washington.
That’s why the Democrats advanced in the 1990 midterms, why Bush lost the 92 campaign,
why in 94 The Republicans were able to take over Congress, all the way to 2006’s reversal
of that “Revolution.”
I think part of what’s different has to do with Bush. September 11 gave him as powerful
a mandate as any president has had in my lifetime, and he used it for narrow, petty goals, for

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 415
a lot of idiotic bureaucratic make-work in the name of fighting terrorism (airport screening),
for one phony terror scare after another, to invade Iraq based on some grandiose neo-con
dream of simply remaking the country in the likeness and image of Wichita, Kansas, and
assorted other stupidities.
And it should be stressed that Bush proved not only unable to maintain the good will
of the Democrats, he could not control and lead his own party. He announced a program
to convert undocumented immigrants into guest workers under what is essentially a new
bracero program.
HIS OWN MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE trashed the plan, going on a nativist rampage
that was a major factor in their losing control of Congress and has probably pushed the
Republicans near to “minor party” status in the Latino community.
Bush has shown himself to be a catastrophically bad president, so much so that even Karl
Rove has dumped him. And I don’t mean bad for working people or something, he’s been
bad for the ruling class. Given a golden opportunity to make progress on countless fronts by
September 11, he lacked the imagination, political will, and skill to do it. He already has the
lowest approval rating of any president in history since polling began, and looks set to break
his own record several more times before leaving office.
At any rate, I think perhaps all the bullshit has had on the younger generation that’s
growing up or coming of age in these past few years an impact similar to McCarthyism on
the youth of the late 50s and 1960s, except much more compressed.
In the Latino community, a lot of it has to do with the vicious assault of these past few
years, and the economic crash that the community has been suffering from for a year or
more, and is only going to get worse as it becomes generalized to the economy as a whole.
The “ruling class” probably doesn’t have a better handle on a lot of this stuff, the change
in underlying popular moods, the zeitgeist, than we do. I don’t think they’re necessarily operating
on the level of the ruling class’s politburo ordering Clinton to stand down or Obama
to take a dive at this point. They’re probably as intrigued as some of us here are by this
phenomenon, but feeling .
I DO believe figures in ruling class political circles do play a big role in this. Obama was
CHOSEN and sponsored by important circles and operators in the Democratic Party. He was
just a state legislator from Illinois when he gave the keynote the 2004 Democrat convention.
Obama, starting from having a layer of people in ruling class political circles that recognized
early on that he was an extraordinarily gifted politician –or, at least candidate– first
consolidated around him the younger layers of voters. That’s how he won Iowa. And a
Black guy winning the first contest in all-white IOWA was BOTH an underdog story and
a man-bites-dog story, archetypal media narratives and immediately uncapped a big layer
of latent support he already had, but that wasn’t finding expression in the polls because so
many people assumed he just couldn’t win.
That in turn led to a gusher of dollars flowing into his campaign, in many cases from the
same sorts of people or the same people as are backing Hillary, and were just covering their
bets, but also a torrent of small donations from regular people especially via the Internet.

416 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Clinton’s missteps in South Carolina and the complete collapse of her support in the Black
community led to Obama winning more victories on Super-Tuesday than Clinton, instead
of her delivering the knock-out punch that her campaign had predicted and was structured
around.
Sure, Clinton won New York, but that was taken for granted. It was also considered not
very significant that her “home state” advantage would extend to New Jersey and Connecticut.
Obama’s beating her in Connecticut showed the surprising strength of his candidacy.
Obama was expected to take Georgia easily, 55-45. In fact, he crushed her, 66% to 31%,
despite the Democrat Party officialdom –Black and white– backing her solidly. In Black
precincts near where I live, her votes were in single digits, Obama’s in the hundreds. And
Georgia’s results were the very first available on Super Tuesday, and so it played a big role
in setting the narrative for the night.
But I’m not sure that if California had closed at 7:00 PM and Georgia at 11:00, the net
result would have been that different. It would have started out that Clinton was delivering,
but as the night wore on, it would all have been about Obama’s come-back. He won more
states and more delegates than she did, when she was the favorite AND had built her campaign
around the idea that she was the inevitable candidate, almost as if she were a sitting
president.
At any rate, Georgia just by itself nullified most of Clinton’s California victory in terms
of delegates. Obama got 35 more delegates than she in GA, Clinton 44 more than he in CA.
Since then Clinton’s campaign has been floundering. The campaign manager and second
in command have been fired; the campaign’s message is a muddle: one day Obama’s a
dangerously inexperienced gasbag, the next she’s honored to be in the race with another
candidate of such a high caliber.
Their policy differences are –consciously– small. He is to the left of her (slightly) on Iraq,
Cuba and foreign policy generally and on immigration, to her right (slightly) on healthcare.
So his pitch is that he’s the one who can actually get things done with the explicit argument
being he can bring people together around the table and so on (something for which there is
simply no evidence) but the implicit, underlying real argument being that he can sway public
opinion and build up enough political pressure to get things done, on which he has a much
better case than any other politician around in this country.
The Clintonites tried to reduce this to the caricature that he just gives good speeches, and
then sought to torpedo that straw man with the plagiarism charge. Obama used a sentence
or two his campaign co-chair gave him without starting, “as my friend so-and-so says.” Her
campaign tried to present it as a High Crime and Misdemeanor worthy of impeachment but
vox populi soon came back saying it wasn’t even a parking ticket.
Incredibly, the Clinton campaign is so tone-deaf that AFTER the plagiarism charge had
gotten laughed out of court, she levied it again at the debate last Thursday, leading to two immediate
results: First, the audience boo’s her. Second, a bunch of us hacks gleefully started
pouring over her speeches and immediately his pay dirt with the kind of stock sentences you
constantly find in campaign rhetoric that others had said before. So she got slammed for

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 417
making a mountain out of a molehill, for being completely out of touch with popular sentiment,
for being a hypocrite, having done the same thing Obama did, and for being stupid,
copying while she herself was drawing attention to the issue.
And to top it all off, one of the Clinton spinmeisters after the debate said it was OK for
her to copy as she wasn’t running for president on the basis of giving good speeches!
This is not untypical of campaigns whose candidate, for whatever reason, turns out to be
less attractive to a broad general public than their competitor and there are no substantive issues.
They wind up flailing at the opponent without rhyme or reason, often doing themselves
more damage
I think Fred is right in the sense that IF the ruling class or a bunch of people in their top political
circles started thinking there was a BIG problem with Obama THEN you would have
seen some ultra-heavyweight write an article about the tremendous significance of Clinton’s
win in California and New York, which had been obscured by the byzantine proportional
representation math, and so on. And all of a sudden the sorts of internal lists I’m on at the
place where I work would be hit by a message by the top boss pointing to the significance
of this article, interviews would pop up on all the cable channels, TIME would pitch in with
something on Obama’s image problems, etc.
My point is that this did not happen, the evolution of the coverage increasingly in favor
of Obama is simply a reflection of his success as a candidate and the reality that he already
has been vetted and blessed by important Democratic Party circles that have been pushing
his candidacy. No additional intervention “from above” was needed or took place, as far
as I can see. And part of the reason for there not being a heavy-handed intervention to put
Clinton ahead are, I’m sure, those calculations Fred outlines about a likely big economic
storm and the need for a charismatic yet expendable figure under whom significant policy
changes, concessions and so on can be pushed through, if necessary.
Joaquin
Next Message by Hans is [435].
[455] Scott: Social Security. The truth is that our Social Security is going broke, and
if we want our children or anybody in the future to have Social Security we need to solve
the problem. We have been warned that by 2014 current tax revenues will be insufficient
to pay current benefits, and by 2029 the Social Security Trust Fund will be empty. It is
mandatory to give the current beneficiaries and participants the benefits they were promised.
The solution to this problem is we need to invest a portion of the budget surplus into the the
Social Security trust fund to provide Social Security to those who were promised it. Second,
we need to change the current Social Security system with personal accounts.
Senator John Mccain realizes there is a problem and has created a plan to solve it. On his
website he gives his stance on the reformation of Social Security, “Senator Mccain believes
that we may meet our obligations to the retirees of today and the future without raising
taxes. Senator Mccain supports the plan to switch the Social Security system with personal
accounts.” This plan allows the Government to keep its promise to those who are retiring
and also provides a solution for the future.

418 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Social Security is definitely a problem that we cannot put aside or ignore. There is 5
trillion unfunded liability in the US in the form of Social Security Trust Fund. If we find a
way to put the money in quick, by using our budget surplus, and then we will be able to get
people to invest their payroll taxes into investments of their choosing. By doing this it will
make a giant difference in the status of their retirement fund.
I agree 100% with Senator Mccain that this is a problem that is not going anywhere and
we need to address it. Giving the American people the opportunity to invest in personal
accounts, and solving the problem at hand that there is not going to be enough money in a
few years is what Americans want to hear and see done.
Message [455] referenced by [461] and [471]. Next Message by Scott is [545].
[461] Jason: Is Social Security that bad off? I’ve heard a lot of negative things about
the Social Security issue, but last semester I heard something fairly different. I can’t remember
where I heard it from, but I believe it was an econ professor I took Current Economic
Problems from. He (or at least I think it was him) said that the Social Security problem is
no where near as serious as most people make it out to be. Since it is a trust fund and more
money is getting paid into it everyday it will not be empty for quite some time. The statistic
I heard was that if nothing was done to resolve the issue by the time we (referring to the
average college aged student) were ready to retire we would receive roughly 70% of what
people get now. I’m not sure, but I am assuming that includes adjustment for inflation. If
this is the case then, while far from optimal, it is hardly the catastrophic failure I’ve heard it
will be.
Does anyone know if what I heard last semester is the case, or is the problem more like
what Scott said in [455]?
Message [461] referenced by [463], [465], [466], and [471]. Next Message by Jason is [514].
[463] Goethe: We are hating it!!! In response to Jason [461]. . . start saving your nickels
pal. . . if the best case scenario is 70% on SS. . . . Then I will be working on the day of my
death. But the good news is that if we continue expand the population, use fossil fuels, and
do nothing to improve society. . . .. We won’t need SS. . . because we won’t be here. . .
Goethe
Next Message by Goethe is [474].
[465] Slash: Re: Is Social Security that bad off? In response to [461]: The problem
with seeing social security is that social security is completely subjective according to the
numbers and graphs looking at it. All of the data that is debated over is speculated and over
so many years that its a real shot in the dark.
Next Message by Slash is [563].
[466] Bmellor: Social security is safe and will never go away... Jason [461] and I must
have taken the same Current Economic Problems class, because I remember the same topic
coming up.
Some are worried about social security because in the beginning, around the time social
security was first enacted, baby boomers were first entering the work force. There were
7 people supporting every 1 retired person a decent enough ratio that it enabled the U.S.
government to build up a 1.9 trillion dollar trust fund which really is nonexistant because it
sponsors other programs the United States is involved in (like wars)... Baby boomers begin

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 419
their retirement in 2008 and by 2020 instead of a 7 to 1 ratio we may be faced with as low
as a 2 to 1 ratio (two people supporting every one person on social security).
Never fear there are 6 ways to save social security, they are the following:
1. Increase taxes. Regan increased taxes by .65% over ten years and insured that social
security would be “safe” for around 50 years. A 4% increase spread out over 300 years
would make social security last forever.
2. Increase fertility. More children means more people that will eventually enter the work
force and support those that are retiring. (Or more imigrants)
3. Increase retirement age. Right now the retirement age is 65 change that to around 71
years old.
4. Change benefit indexing. The theory is that those who are wealthy don’t really need
social Security; therefore they are given little or no social security.
5. Increase the tax ceiling.
6. Change trust fund savings to a GNMA. Nicknamed Ginnie Mae, a government-owned
corporation that is an agency of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Ginnie
Maes are pools of residential mortgages. GNMA guarantees, with the “full faith” and
credit of the US Government, that investors will receive full and timely principal and interest
payments even if mortgages in the pool are not paid on a timely basis.
Social Security was never meant to be a full retirement. However today’s benefits provide
at least 50% of the income of 66% of the elderly and 90% of the income of 30% of the elderly.
The real plan is that social security should be around 19% of your yearly expenditures
of retirement.
When you watch the news for some reason lately you hear a lot about private accounts
being the solution to Social Security reform. While the decision still needs to made as
to what plan of action needs to be taken to reform Social Security, President Bush’s main
focus for reform is on “changing the benefit indexing” not providing private Social Security
accounts.
Now no matter what your views are of the private accounts program there is an immediate
problem with this plan. The Bush administration’s plan calls for the government to lose 30%
of revenues needed to pay current obligations, people who presently are receiving benefits.
The plan calls for 30% of social security to be diverted into private markets. In a “pay as you
go system” like we have now this can be complicated. The government will have to either
cut funding or borrow money to make up the deficiency. There will be a transaction cost of
2 trillion dollars over 10 years. And this could also be seen as added debt obligations due
to the transformation of the system. Not mention the cost added because of advisors that
would oversee these private accounts. Private accounts would appear to not be the perfect
answer, but we as Americans like them because our little ears stick up when we hear about
actually having personal control over 30% of the money we pay for social security. If the
government puts money into a mutual fund for us we think “Yes! That is less money that
I have to save for my own retirement.” Not true, some countries have tried private accounts

420 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
already (Argentina, Great Britain) and failed, and are now scrambling to get back to the
system that we have now.
Social Security reform is about making it last. It is about assuring the public that no
matter what the government will always be able to pay disabilities, pensions etc... Assuring
that social security will always be able to cover 19% of your retirement. President Regan
increased taxes by not even 1% over ten years and it assured that Social Security would be
around for at least 50 more years. Experts say that if you were to increase taxes by 4% during
an infinite amount of time you will always have enough money for social security. This being
said the problem is not whether or not we will have Social Security in the future, it is “What
do we go about doing so that social security meets the needs of the American people?” There
is always a solution to solving a Social Security crisis, raising taxes. However the first plan
of action is how do we better plan and manage the funds we already posses? That is what is
debatable; Social Security will always be around.
Message [466] referenced by [467] and [471]. Next Message by Bmellor is [485].
[467] Sparky: Social Security more than baby-boomers. In response to all the Stats.
and allegation that Social Security is just a “baby-boomer” problem, and that only retirees
are the ones that benefit and that we will only benefit from the system once we retire, I
would just like to point out that the system is so much much more than that. The Social
Security system acts as a safety net for many people in America today. I am writing this out
of personal experience, My mother, who is only 52, is receiving social security checks every
month, as well as my 11 year old sister and my 16 year old brother, due to a certain event
that happened in my family the government has stepped in and is giving help to my family.
This is the social security system, it is not just for the old and retired.
While the system made up of greatly older persons, there is the younger people that the
system is caring for and that is one fact that is easily forgotten. We constantly hear about
the aging population of the United States and how in the next ten or so years the majority
of them will be retiring and that the system will suddenly take on more pressure. We need
to remember that there are many others, of many different ages, which could just as easily
start taking money from the system, leaving even less for others (Us!) when it comes time to
retire. And just touching on Bmellors idea 3 in [466] his idea to change the age of retirement
to 71, I don’t know about anyone else but I believe that is a terrible, terrible thing to even
suggest, I for one think that 65 is to far and that people should be able to retire at any age, I
would say as low as 50 if not lower- I don’t want to spend my life working but living!
The system as we know it must be watched and guarded, it is not perfect and it has it
faults and limitations just like any other government institution but I believe that by simple
thinking over the name of this institution- Social Security, you will realize that it is more
important that many many of the other institutions that we have built up in our government.
Message [467] referenced by [470] and [471]. Next Message by Sparky is [518].
[470] Kevin: Who should be Socially responsible for Security? All this talk about
Social Security has me thinking. I fully believe that there has to be some institutionalized
social security network of some kind. There are people in the United States that are, for
whatever reason, incapable of making a full and complete living, such as Sparky’s family
[467]. I completely understand that at a point in an individual’s life it becomes impossible

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 421
to work anymore but there must be an ability to support one’s self. But the question all this
raises is, who should really be socially responsible?
Not that I’m saying this would easy, the social “norm” or cool thing to do, or even practical
in many situations, or that this is even something I WANT to do, but shouldn’t the social
security of individuals after retirement fall to the children? Shouldn’t we be responsible for
our parents’ welfare and not the government? Wouldn’t that be the socially responsible thing
to do?
Again, I realize that this would not, and could not, always be the case, but seriously, how
many Americans take a financially active role in the life of their parents once their parents
reach the age of retirement? Maybe this is just the white, middle-class male showing in me
and I’m completely ignorant of any most situations outside of my socio-economic group but
I don’t believe anyone here in America does anything more than put their parents in an old
folks home. In my experience, it’s only when the government’s social security doesn’t cover
the tab that people make a financial contribution to their retired parents whatsoever.
Next Message by Kevin is [488].
[471] Dentist: my two cents on SS. I would like to weigh in on this social security
discussion as I am also debating the system in another class that I am currently taking.
While I certainly make no claims on being an expert, I feel there are some contributions and
clarifications I can make.
Bmellor [466] has already gone a long way in bringing some clarifications to the issue,
and I would like to respond to a few of his “6 solutions.”
Firstly, I agree that decreasing the dependcency ratio though either fertility or immigration
are real solutions to the funding issue, and to you “over-populists” I would also like to
say that an indirect way to affect this ratio is through productivity. We have become vastly
more productive then the baby boom generation and as such the dependency ratio does not
directly need to be changed. When one man today can perform the work that it took 10 or
more in a previous generation, the same result is reached without affecting population.
Secondly, in terms of adjusting the payroll ceiling tax, which Scott [455] has also discussed.
I agree that this is a solution and I would like to (kindly) correct Scott [455] on some
of figures. According to the 2007 trustees report (again from the SSA website) payments
will not begin to exceed income until 2017, and even then the trillions in surplus that have
been accumulating since the Reagan Administration will sustain the system without making
any changes until 2041. And as stated previously, they will still manage to pay out nearly
70% of estimated benefits.
As far as the controversial switch to private accounts, is irrelevant because that switch
will change the fundamental purpose of the SSA from insurance to investment (which most
people now think it is anyway). I am not stating my opinion for or against this change, but
it is worth pointing out that private accounts aren’t a solution to the funding issue, they are
fundamental change in what social security is designed to be, and thus a different debate.
The solution to the problem does not need to be a dramatic change.
Actually it can be solved quite simply. According to the most recent economic report of
the president, in order to fix the “problem” 3.4 trillion dollars will be needed, which sounds

422 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
daunting. However, merely eliminating payroll tax ceiling of 97,000 dollars, the SSA would
receive 10.9 trillion! And by making an adjustment from 97,000 to 170,000 dollars the SSA
would gain 5 trillion. These are two simple and relatively small changes that show how
easily the problem can be resolved.
Thirdly, I am not sure I agree with the non-existant nature of the surplus that Bmellor
[466] suggests. The SSA sells its surplus income in the form of bonds, the bulk of which
the government purchases. So it’s true the money is not directly there, but is loaned to the
government, which has NEVER defaulted on a loan, with the promise of being returned with
interest. So the surplus is there in the same way that your savings account is in your bank.
Moving along in the discussion, as pointed out by sparky [467] and Bmellor [466] social
security is not merely a retirement program. In fact it is not a retirement program at all!
Social security is an INSURANCE system set up by the federal government as a part of
FDR’s new deal to bring an end to the great depression. It is designed to keep money in the
pockets of people who have less capacity to earn it for one reason or another (whether it be
due to age, disability, ect.), not to keep the recipients from starving per say, but to keep the
economy from starving. You are simply the means through which the government satisfies
its end.
To any critics of my claim, this is directly from the SSA website’s FAQ’s, “Q: Should I
count on Social Security for all my retirement income? A: No. Social Security was never
meant to be the sole source of income in retirement. It is often said that a comfortable retirement
is based on a ‘three-legged stool’ of Social Security, pensions and savings. American
workers should be saving for their retirement on a personal basis and through employersponsored
or other retirement plans.”
So you alone are responsible to plan and make your own retirement happen. And your
social security benefits are merely a input to be considered in the overall function.
As far as the “terminal” state of social security, Jason [461] does remember correctly
that even if the SSA does become completely insolvent it will still be able to pay out approximately
70% of your benefits. And should this be the case, which it won’t because the
quickest way to stir a man to action is to threaten his pocketbook, it is likely the government
will step in and find a way to subsidize the other 30%. After all, they have to keep the
monster fed.
I am sure by now I have gone on long enough, leaving all of you bored, and myself open
to my own misinterpretations and error. So I suppose “that’s all I have to say bout’ that.”
Next Message by Dentist is [489].
[503] Alex: Socialism. I have been intrigued by the response to Governor Huntsman’s
health plans. The general definition of socialism can be defined but I am not sure most
Utahns understand that definition. Whenever the government steps out of a preconceived
notion to do some good in the community it is automatically considered socialism. This is
small minded and will continue disproportionate growth.
Next Message by Alex is [547].
[507] Srichardson: Socialism. I am also surprised about the publics views when it
comes to the proposed health plans. I also do not think that Utahns understand the definition

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 423
of socialism. The main reason that i believe Utahns do not have a basic understanding is
because until this class I had no real concept of socialism.
I have grown up in Utah and received all of my education through the Utah public school
system, and although I can not remember a specific incident where socialism was discussed
as a bad system,it somehow got into my head that it was an inferior system to what we had
here in the US and that it didn’t work for anyone. So now that we are trying to solve some
of our problem when it comes to health care Utahns still hold a stigma against anything
socialist. Utah needs to be educated about what the definition of socialism really is.
Next Message by Srichardson is [523].
[512] Jeremy: Why the need for labels? Something that I’ve noticed over the years is the
need for humans to place a name or label upon everything. This habit causes devision and
grouping simultaneously. If I enjoy the outdoors, I’m a tree hugger or an environmentalist.
If you are Hispanic, people now wonder if you are here illegally. If you take a class that
analyzes Karl Marx, you must be a communist.
These, and most all groups are stereotyped with correct and incorrect information as well.
In the example above, enjoying the outdoors doesn’t mean I want to chain myself to a tree
to prevent clear cutting. While there may be some truth to a stereotype such as a tree hugger
enjoying the outdoors, however they don’t all eat granola, have braids or dread locks, and
wear clothing made of hemp. Why do we need to classify everything? How can we break
the cycle of stereotyping?
Message [512] referenced by [513] and [538]. Next Message by Jeremy is [536].
[513] Brandon: RE: Why the need for labels? I think this is an important question that
goes beyond looking at how particular societies relate to one another in the social sense. I
think it gets down to primal nature. All of have certain characteristics and attributes that we,
not so much flaunt, but allow to define ourselves. For example, I fit the ‘rocker’ stereotype.
I play guitar, I work at a rock radio station, I dress the part, etc because thats who I am and
I’m comfortable being in that niche. I am a lot of other things but the people who know
me generally associate me with that stereotype. We all gravitate towards groups because we
like to surround ourselves we what is familiar and what will support our lifestyles. Now
on the larger scale that Jeremy pointed out in [512] concerning general stereotypes that we
label on people whom we don’t know, is definitely a problem in our society that, I believe,
can never be stopped. We look at other people’s individualisms and immediately feel the
need to categorize them. The most detrimental form of this is in regards to race as Jeremy
pointed out. People look at a black person and this there’s a gangster, or uneducated, etc.
Hispanics=illegal. I recently was working the Les Claypool show on Wednesday night, and
afterwards I went up to a girl and asked to bum a cigarette. I’m half east Indian and I
have a little beard thing going on, and she looked and me and said, “i’m not giving you
a smoke Dirka Dirka, you f***ing currymuncher”. Well she got currymuncher right, I do
love me a nice bowl of curry, but this is an example of how our modern society views other
nationalities, and we are even willing to spew racist rants at people we dont know. Me
personally, I’m not offended by someone else’s ignorance. I believe we are only offended
if we allow ourselves to be. To answer Jeremy’s last question “How can we break the
cycle of stereotyping”, I don’t believe that is possible. By not feeding into stereotyping and

424 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
constantly battling over a ideological war such as this, is personally how I deal with it. But
thats just me...
Message [513] referenced by [531]. Next Message by Brandon is [603].
[524] Ryoung: Have Obama’s Chances Been Hurt As Of Late? I wanted to get the
opinions of others in the class on if Obama has been hurt by the comments of Rev. Jeremiah
Wright or not?
Personally I am not 100% familiar with the recent comments of Rev. Jeremiah Wright
but I have noticed that it has been recieving a lot of air time in the news and on the internet.
I believe that the media is always trying cause problems and for this reason I have not given
it much thought. I wanted to see the opinions of everyone else. I believe that it will not hurt
Obama because I believe that he is a classy enough guy to overcome what has been thrown
his way, and I still believe that he will come away with the Democratic nomination.
Next Message by Ryoung is [692].
[526] Srichardson: Obama campaign. I personally do not believe that Obama’s campaign
has been hurt because of the recently brought up comments of comments of Rev.
Jeremiah Wright. I believe that many of the comments that have been shown on T.V over
and over again have been blown out of proportion by the media. I do not think that a presidential
candidate is responsible for the actions of everyone he/she knows. I hang out with
people that I do not believe in everything they say and I do not personally think that it is
necessary for you to believe everything that your pastor says if you are a religious person.
Next Message by Srichardson is [541].
[531] Papageorgio: label me. Brandon in [513] talks about labels that are put on people,
regarding race, activities, etc. It is interesting to live in where people are judged off the bat
by color or who they associate with. I think we must first worry about ourselves and make
sure we are not hypocrites, that when we say we do not label that we watch ourselves and be
sure to truly not label people. That we look at people for who they are. It is interesting to me
that our society is still affected by racism. It seems to have no place in the common crowd yet
seems so alive today. It is very plain to me at least from my eyes that race is not an issue, that
no matter what color someone is does not set them apart, the color or race is not what makes
them different than others, so accordingly I feel color language should be dropped. That
people should not refer to people as black or white or red or yellow or brown because that is
not what makes them different. What makes a person unique, different, or act a certain way
would more likely be described by where they lived, grew up, the culture of how that person
was raised. If you take someone who was raised in an affluent area of America and begin
that person’s life over but raise them in say a poor African country they will be a completely
different person, with no regard to color. They will act as those Africans act and work how
they work. No matter what it is culture and where you are raised that helps you become who
you are not your color. If a white kid from the suburbs in middle America was raised in say
the ghetto on the east coast he would take on aspects of that culture. Labels on things like
race such as black and white, also hurt us and continue to bring racism and dwelling on the
past instead of looking to the future. Labels need to stop and all must remember we are the
human color.
Message [531] referenced by [562]. Next Message by Papageorgio is [548].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 425
[538] Spawnblade: Alright I will label you. I find the other three posts correlating to this
discussion to exaggerate things quite drastically in regards to the subject of labeling. Jeremy
[512] remarks that enjoying the outdoors can be misinterpreted as trying to save the forest
by placing yourself in front of a chainsaw. This is something I believe any rational person
(and this a topic that can really only apply to rational people) might see as deteriorating the
point.
The reason I find it important not to exaggerate with this topic, is because we have (as
humans) a need for labels. People may claim to not like labels, stereotypes, and judging
things by appearances... But can you imagine what the world would be like if we didn’t
have them?
Yes, you’d be neutral towards everyone... But in the same regards, you would then have
to use a great amount of processing power in order to acquire information about someone
which you really should have simply discerned from their appearance. Assuming that you’re
only discerning reasonable conclusions.
This leads me to the real problem with labels: When people come to irrational conclusions
and judgements about a person that do not correlate to their actions or appearance. If someone
is wearing gangster clothing, its a reasonable assertion that they’re either a wannabe, or
a gangster. If a woman is standing on the corner of the street, half naked, and waving in
passing cars... It’s reasonable to assume she’s a prostitute, and not just an extraordinarily
friendly woman with too much time on her hands.
It would be nice if people removed incorrect stereotypes from their organizing.. But I can
say that a great deal of those stereotypes are a result of hollywood. We take in a lot of our
labels from actions that people do in movies... And in movies, what race(s) are most likely
to be the criminal? How about a white collar crime?
Despite these problems, labels are still a necessary function. We simply do not have
enough mental power to process unbiased information about everyone. In psychology I
learned that there are certain states of mind we do in fact process things more thoroughly
with less reliance on labels... However, it is generally when you have enough energy and
cognition to spare.
In regards to the topic of racism and labels relating to it... I highly recommend the movie
American History X. It is an excellent film of which I wish we’d see others like it. And I
think that it will answer Jeremy’s question about ‘What we should do?’ (The most obvious
answer being... To overturn stereotypes by introducing people to real life examples. This
requires a more diverse community, which many parts of Utah are lacking.)
Next Message by Spawnblade is [621].
[546] Scott: Private accounts. We talk a lot about privatizing our accounts and how this
will help our problem, but why are we still talking about it if we know England failed when
they tried the same thing? I think the United States’ officials should examine what went
wrong in England before pushing private accounts onto Americans. For private plans this is
what America needs to do; look at what went wrong in the United Kingdom and implement
controls in our system to ensure the same issues do not arise.
Message [546] referenced by [564]. Next Message by Scott is [670].

426 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
[551] Aaron: I agree with [547] that the United States should look at what went wrong
with the British version before we try and implement our own. However, there are a lot of
differences in our system of money and banking and economics than the British systems.
For example, the federal system for retirement, like our social security is a bit different and
subtle differences in the economic machine can amount to large gaps in how government
programs can efficiently run. Just because the British system didn’t work as planned doesn’t
mean that another country can’t do it.
Next Message by Aaron is [601].
[555] PrivateProperty: Flood of emails. I think it’s really amusing that there are virtually
no contributions to the mailing list for two weeks, and then 20 people en masse send their
contributions right before deadline.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m guilty of waiting until the last minute, but this is ridiculous.
There is too much content in my inbox to even skim over this week, much less actually read
and respond to. Moral of the story: space out your contributions.
Message [555] referenced by [599]. Next Message by PrivateProperty is [602].
[562] Paul: We’ll always label. Papageorio [531] makes a case that we should not label
people based on their race for the more determining factor of what type of person you will
be has to do with the culture in which you were raised. While I believe that the culture
you grow up in has a bigger part of making you who you are than the color of your skin
is this really a better way to label someone? I think not. Instead a labeling people black,
white, Asian, Inuit, Arab, whatever, your just going to label them things like rich kid, ghetto,
country boy, or suburban punk. Is this any better than labeling by color? Maybe. The fact
is that it is human nature to distinguish oneself from the crowd and we are going to label
people no matter what the criteria.
Next Message by Paul is [725].
[564] Slash: Private accounts. In response to [546], I find it interesting that almost every
president has at one time or another pushed for private accounts. I know McCain has. I
understand the importance of looking at why England failed, but when doing there needs
to be understanding as to the social demands that could be different. I find myself wanting
private accounts. My main reason would be to eliminate the hoops of insurance companies.
Next Message by Slash is [599].
[569] SnatchimusMaximus: Re: Private accounts. Are we talking about health care or
Social Security checks? After all, they are two entirely different things. Fixing health care,
if we dare to say that it is broken, has nothing to do with making Social Security solvent.
Next Message by SnatchimusMaximus is [612].
[599] Slash: Re: Flood of emails. PrivateProperty [555] made comments as to the flow
of emails contributed to this site. I have also seen this, but unlike PrivateProperty I don’t
find him, or anyone one guilty. This is how the real world works, its called procrastination,
and as long as there are deadlines this is how people will respond. I don’t want to seem like
PrivateProperty hasn’t made a point worth pointing out, but I don’t see why this would be
any other way. I find also that if someone finds a problem that the best way to make change
is recommend a solution, such as lets split this class up into three groups and have deadlines
throughout the semester to break them up, oh yeah we do.
Next Message by Slash is [625].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 427
[600] Jason: Piracy vs Pervasiveness. I was having a conversation with my friend the
other day about music. We were talking about how since the advent of Napster music sales
have dropped by a huge number. No one wants to buy music anymore when they can just
download entire albums for free in minutes. Anyway, we were talking about how despite the
massive sales loss the record industry is taking right now musical awareness is at an all time
high. The major losers here are primarily the production companies who take the bulk of the
sale anyway. That and the very popular mainstream musicians.
The positive aspect we were discussing though, is that much smaller time musicians are
getting the exposure they deserve without the big record labels okaying them and taking 95%
of the profits. Even though no one is really buying their music, the sheer amount of exposure
allows them to go on tour and make money that way. Also, most of the independent small
time musicians generally are doing it because they want too, not to become filthy rich. They
really just want to be heard. I’d say overall the advent of the internet has had a positive effect
on the music industry and has allowed a lot more lesser known work come out.
The same thing is starting to happen with movies. Small time movie makers are able to
upload their entire films to sites like Google Video. Another neat effect is the difficulty of
censorship. When Lust, Caution came out in China it was edited down from the equivalent
of an R rating to a PG. The director said he wasn’t too worried about it because he knew the
people that really wanted to see the real version could find it online.
Another nice thing is the legal software out now that lets people hear huge amounts of
music for free. Sites like Pandora.com let you create internet radio stations that play music
similar to whatever band you type in.
So what do you guys think? Is music/movie piracy a bad thing or a good thing overall?
Next Message by Jason is [622].
[601] Aaron: Piracy benefits and apple music. Piracy is an interesting discussion in
the sense that it is debatable as to who the winners and losers are. I believe that the losers
are the production companies who receive the bulk of the profits from album sales. On the
other hand, it is important to note and mention that apple is now the largest music retailer in
the world. They recently overtook wal-mart. With the market domination of the Ipod brand,
and the naming of apple as the largest music retailer, it is easy to deduce that the general
public are actually buying the songs legally. I have to say, that I personally do not pay for
my music, I download it from a file “sharing” website. I believe that most of the popular and
niche musicians make most of their money from concert tours and appearances rather than
album sales, but I could be off on that. I agree with the earlier comment that this new age
wave of music purchasing and sharing really helps the smaller and lesser known musicians.
Message [601] referenced by [602] and [621]. Next Message by Aaron is [603].
[602] PrivateProperty: Piracy benefits and apple music. I agree with what Aaron says
in [601]. I also use a file-sharing program (called ‘DC ++’ if you’re interested) to download
music and movies for free. I find the music industry to be quite ridiculous in general, as a
lot of it is just a marketing orgy that collapses onto itself over and over again. The music
we end up listening to is really a complex web of relationships between TV, film, radio, and
grassroots support, which definitely should be the most important (by far) factor in a band’s
success.

428 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Even saying that a band is ‘successful’ or not is ridiculous. Music is music, it has a
purpose, and that is to be enjoyed. If you care about money more than your music, you
are not a musician. And no, those two things are not related, except for the idea of buying
equipment to make your music.
You can’t just introduce a band as the next big thing, and introduce them as such, and
expect people to buy into it precisely because you’ve said they are the next big thing. Yet
that is exactly what happens. It makes no sense (recall endless marketing orgy, above).
Anyway, don’t buy any media (music, movies, whatever) unless you really support and
respect that particular artist. Otherwise you are just feeding the monster.
Message [602] referenced by [621]. Next Message by PrivateProperty is [603].
[605] Chris: cheap music. I have read many interesting columns from artists and consumers
in regards to the recent decline of record sales. Some bands stream their entire cd on
websites such as myspace.com before the street release date of the album. For instance, the
metal band In Flames have done this with their recent release. I have found a few websites
from Russia that offer whole album downloads for about $1.00 - $3.00. I read that in Russia
you can pick up an album at a local record store for about $5.00. This makes me think
that the United States record labels are ripping off consumers and artists alike by charging
$15.00 to $20.00 per album. To relate this to our Marx class, the record companies are exploiting
consumers and artists by taking a large portion of excess profits from them. It is
sad to see artists struggle with record sales. This causes them to be out on tour more to gain
sales through merchandise, ticket sales, etc. and spend less time at home with their families.
Personally, I find it important to support the artists that we like. I just am having problems
supporting the capitalists who exploit the artists and the consumers.
Next Message by Chris is [615].
[609] Clayon: Re: Piracy benefits and apple music. There are are couple points that
I would like to talk on with respect to downloading music from the internet. I agree with
what was said about how internet downloads open the market up to smaller name musicians,
which gives all musicians a more equal starting point. I also agree that it is healthy for the
industry in the sense that it lessens the producers power and influence over the musicians.
I did want to bring up the point that the musicians themselves still deserve reimbursement
for their work in recording an album. Revenue from going on tour is good, but it is not what
puts bread on the table. Generally what makes giving a concert worth the musicians time is
the revenue brought in by cd sales at the concert. If no ones buying cd’s (or not paying for it
on the Internet) its hard to justify the concert. I agree that a musician’s main intent shouldn’t
be to get filthy rich, but I do believe that they should receive what they deserve, hopefully
enough to support a family without needing a second job.
A couple of years ago I was a piano performance major. It was some of the most enjoyable
years of my college experience. After a couple of years I decided to be more practical and
study something that I could support a family with. I left music not because I wanted to,
but because it would be hard to make a living in the industry. I know many others that have
done the same. I only mention this to show that free downloads have the potential to take
revenue away from musicians and force them out of the market, ultimately leaving us with
less variety.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 429
What would be beneficial is for each musician to have their own site where they can sell
their music and directly receive the money from the consumer without the middle man. $1 a
song seems pretty decent, similar to what itunes is, but again without the middle man.
Message [609] referenced by [621]. Next Message by Clayon is [614].
[610] Rey: Justification...it’s so beautiful! The music debate is something I seem to find
myself in quite often. I am a firm believer in paying for one’s music! First things first, it
is illegal to steal music, and for some reason otherwise law abiding citizens have found a
way to justify illegal downloading. Ask that same individual if they would walk into a store
and steal that CD and the majority of the time these individuals would say no. For some
reason, however, a good majority of people who steals music act as if they are leading some
type of crusade against major record labels. Let’s cut the crap people and call it how it is!
You are just too cheap to purchase the album off the shelves of a store. Sure record labels
make money, but so do the artist (although you are correct in acknowledging it to be a small
amount), it still doesn’t justify theft.
Second if you really are that upset about the astronomical revenue record labels are generating
off the backs of the artist you are probably listening to trash anyway. The only labels
creating these empires are the ones pumping the same mundane, trendy, manufactured noise
through the radio! I could list dozens of independent artist who have self produced their own
albums and then gone on to create labels that have assist other aspiring artists flourish in their
respected industry. For example, the hardcore band Nora has been a staple in the hardcore
genre for over a decade now and they have done wonders to help the genre progress through
their label, Ferret Music. Another great example, the independent hip-hop artist Immortal
Technique (Disclaimer: He drops some sick tracks which are highly controversial and extremely
radical. Although he has a very strong showing most of the time, I do not agree with
everything he is about) who sold over 200,000 records from his trunk and has now created
a label to self produce and help other rising artist. So give me a break people if you really
are concerned with perpetuating the capitalist machine in the music industry stop listening
to garbage.
Now I will give credit where credit is due. Illegal downloading and file sharing has done
wonders to eliminate weak “one hit wonder” tracks and promote otherwise lesser known
bands (I purposely abstain from using the now cliche “underground” tag here. Most people
are too quick to slap the tag of “underground” on stuff that’s playing from the rooftops).
All in all I think the iTunes approach is a good start in resolving the situation, anyone who
isn’t willing to pay 99 cents for a track doesn’t deserve to be listening to it anyway. The
monopoly that iTunes has created may be a different monster all together, but in reality who
cares who’s getting paid people! As long as I have my music and my artist aren’t cutting
their creativity short to get their music to the people, then I really don’t care who gets the
check. Besides my artists are smart enough to protect themselves, I don’t need to do it for
them!
Message [610] referenced by [611]. Next Message by Rey is [703].
[611] PrivateProperty: Re: Justification...it’s so beautiful! ‘Stealing music’ [610] Does
that phrase not sound ridiculous? The issue here is that music can be stolen in the first place.
I’m talking about m-u-s-i-c. Those pleasant sound waves that enter your ear. Please do not
equate file-sharing with robbing a store. That is plain ridiculous.

430 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Nobody is ‘justifying’ file-sharing. What you feel is the ‘cold, hard truth’ is, believe it or
not, your opinion. I’d like to address its illegality in some forms is not helpful in ascertaining
whether it’s morally right or wrong to file-share. Being prosecuted and going to jail and/or
paying fines is compelling reason enough to not participate. But that does not tell us anything
if it is wrong or not.
So is it wrong? Well, that depends who you are in this situation.
The fundamental issue is whether or not a recorded music file is a commodity that belongs
under the realm of private property.
Obviously, a CD is one thing, in that it is a physical object taking up space on a shelf.
There are significant costs that go into producing the CDs, completely extraneous to the
actual recorded content and much more that go into distribution, all of which takes place
after recording. It’s expensive. You have to pay for a CD.
As you may realize, however, CDs are now obsolete. They have been replaced by computer
files, which are completely different. There are virtually no costs involved with reproducing
music files, such as those sold on iTunes. You can literally make a million copies
of a music file, and all you need is a hard drive the size of a breadbasket and a fast-enough
computer. Distribution? All you need is a website and a server. Not expensive.
But there are costs involved, so it can’t be free. $0.99 per file? Seems reasonable for the
listener. But in the case where I want to ‘check out’ a band or explore some new music, I
am turning to file sharing.
The thing about file-sharing is that is that the networks are unreliable and hard to navigate.
Plus, a lot of content simply never makes it onto a network, for one reason or another. This
fact alone will always drive listeners, even avid ‘music pirates’ (little does the industry know
that being a pirate is fashionable these days) to music retailers. I go to iTunes all the time.
Keep in mind, also, that file-sharing (in addition to MySpace) greatly increases the number
of listeners and fans who just wouldn’t have heard the music otherwise. Music is more
about exposure and influence than it is about sales (even though those elements certainly
feed off each other). Everyone, except the middleman, should be embracing of file-sharing.
Message [611] referenced by [2008fa:675]. Next Message by PrivateProperty is [673].
[621] Spawnblade: Re: Piracy benefits and apple music. Aaron [601], PrivateProperty
[602], and Clayon [609] continue the discussion about file sharing. I didn’t expect to see
anyone talk about music ‘sharing’ or ‘stealing’ on this forum of discussion, but when I think
about it, it fits the course content quite well.
In response to these three, and the others on the issue, I would like to detail what I learned
when I was doing research on the issue. I actually was debating starting up a website that
took ‘donations’ from people who wanted to support the artist. This has been done before,
but only once, and long ago. However, to give people a retrospect idea of why I personally
don’t buy music but instead pay for concerts:
1) In the past, the average 15 dollar CD gave the artist themselves 10%. So $1.50 per CD.
CD prices have of course dropped drastically, but that percentage they’re paid has not.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 431
2) As PrivateProperty [602] stated, the publishing companies are simply getting crap
artists and chugging out the same formulated music. There is no love for music (which art
should be based around), there is only profit.
3) Now that labels don’t need to manufacture and distribute cds, (which used to cost them
about 1$ per cd), you’d think they’d get paid that share of the cost... But, nope! They actually
get paid -less-. If they received 10% of a 15$ cd, which is now 10$, they only receive 5-7%
of the value of those 99c iTunes songs! So even when Weird Al sells 4.5 million singles,
how much does he get?... A couple hundred thousand dollars... And the rest for the label?
Wow!
4) Despite taking over 90% of the artist’s earnings, labels also do not pay the artist until
they’ve “paid the label back” for the initial recording/production costs.
5) Last year Radiohead released the first ‘free cd’ by a major name band. They completely
bypassed the label (since they were no longer under contract) and offered to sell their cd at
whatever amount the people who listening to it felt it was worth. 50% of the sales were
‘special edition’ albums that sold for 40$ a piece. That clocked in at a couple million (those
actually had set prices due to the added material content). The other 50% was based on
several million users, both new and devoted, who ended up paying an average of 4-5$ (from
most likely deflated statistics). This average was -much- higher than the normal amount
artists got, however. And yet the label companies have tried to say it was a failure.
Besides just ruining music, label companies do their bests to make the artists dependant
on them so they can leech off their talent. If users are ‘stealing music’ then I’d say labels are
stealing the ‘soul’ of music.
P.S. When I looked into a website that allowed donations, one of the most difficult parts is
that 99% of bands are under contract saying they cannot take payment from outside sources.
(This includes ‘donations’, and probably anything not approved by the label) I imagine the
labels simply didn’t want the artist to go and sell cds on their own... But because of this most
artists simply won’t even attempt to receive the money.
Oh and if they were making 1$ a song without the middle man... (and without apple’s cut
which is rather hefty) then they’d be -much- better off.
Next Message by Spawnblade is [727].
[633] Alex: The New Mixed Use Project at the U. The U. just announced its plans to
turn the parking lot just west of the stadium into a mixed use project. This is a bad idea. I am
not opposed to developments that claim to be progressive and sustainable, however at what
cost. During my time at the U. I have been perplexed about the lack of parking. Now the plan
is to take some away, or make it more cumbersome. The parking structure being planned in
this development should have been planned for other, more crowded, areas of the University.
The University is greatly limiting itself by not providing enough parking as it is. To put it
into perspective, can the U. grow? No the U. cannot grow, there is no room. The University
needs to be realistic and realize that if the University is to progress they must be more wise
about freeing up existing uses by providing strategically placed structured parking. I am not
against this development, but why is it that the U. is more concerned about what happens in

432 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
a parking lot with a non university related use when the rest of us have to suffer with poor
planning on the campus.
Next Message by Alex is [769].
[640] Jeremy: Is the internet the ”Great Equalizer” or the ”Veil for Cowardice” Due
to recent posts to the class site, the question came to mind as to what hidden purpose, or
rather, benefit does the internet give us. This is not directed at any specific individual, but
rather at the population as a whole. The internet has advanced the spread of information at a
quickstep pace, but have our social skills advanced, in regards to internet ettiquette/manners,
along with the information splurge?
In face to face interaction, there are unspoken rules of engagement, such as not interrupting
when someone is speaking, proper and improper gestures and language, stating of
opinions at the proper junctures, etc. With the internet, it appears that we, as a society, feel
that these are more of a nuisance and have chosen to lay them aside. What could cause us to
do such a thing? Is it that these are more of traditional mores that we, as the up and coming
generation, would like to let die with our forefathers? Are they meaningless acts that no
longer have a place amongst us? Or is it that we are lazy and just want to get to the point
without dilly dallying around it? My thought is that we are now using the internet as a veil.
As noticed in several posts for this class, things have been said that would not be acceptable
in a physical social setting. I am doubtful that most of the derogatory comments made here
would have been made if we were all in a classroom together. The reason for this could be
fear of repercussion, be it verbal or physical, shyness, or actual human inhibition and the old
saying of “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”
As a veil, the internet has given those of us who are shy the ability to speak freely and not
feel as if we would be attacked for our thoughts or opinions. It has given a forum to those
who were once thought of as geeks and nerds to speak up and have a voice. I think that
the ability to share intelligence has been increased. In opposition to that, we have also seen
that for the good that is provided, there must also be bad. We now see people that, because
they have no fear of consequence, express themselves to an extreme that can be annoying,
or largely to a point, distasteful.
I feel that you can learn much about a person by removing fear and letting them speak
as they wish. This is what truly distinguishes the inner character of a human. That which
is said or done when no one else can see is generally the true desire of that person’s heart.
With that, I would take a moment to reflect on what we have all posted to glimpse inside
ourselves to see if we are acting more as a person we can take pride in being or if there are
aspects of our lives which need adjustment to bring us in line with our true potential.
Next Message by Jeremy is [641].
[664] Rampton: Freakonomics Today. I found it amazing that there are so many ways
to look at the ideas of men. The different way that you can put economics in life. He poses
such questions as, Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool? Why do drug
dealers still live with their parents? How did the legalization of abortion affect the rate of
violent crime? These are some of the questions that Freakonomics Author talks about in his
book. It seems like a very interesting topic. I am sitting here in the audience excited to hear
what he is going to talk about!

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 433
Next Message by Rampton is [804].
[667] Rmuscolino: Freakonomics. The book “Freakonomics”, by Steven Levitt, was so
interesting! It talks about what factors motivate people and how people get what they want. It
relates some crazy things as well such as, “What Do School Teachers Have in Common with
Sumo Wrestlers?” and “How Is the Ku Klux Klan Like a Group of Real-Estate Agents?”
The authors present surprising and enlightening examples of how economics can be used
to describe why people do the things they do. The book criticizes some of the conclusions
presented in the economy, and contends that its strength lies with the questions it asks, rather
than the answers it offers. It’s a great book and definitely worth reading!
Next Message by Rmuscolino is [712].
[676] Ken: health care crisis. The U.S. health care system is in a crisis. The reason I
feel like the health care system is in a crisis because only a specific group of people benefit
from our health care system. “For Rawls, the central task of government is to preserve and
promote the liberty and welfare of individuals.” (Munson, 759, 2004). Rawls’s theory of
justice uses utilitarianism, principles of justice and a “veil of ignorance”. A veil of ignorance
would hypothetically be created by causing a group of people to become completely
ignorant. These people would be unaware of their personal welfare and status. They would
then create policies that would give everyone a chance at achieving opportunities, wealth
and power. Because the people in this hypothetical group are ignorant, they would be unable
to create policies that would benefit themselves. (Munson, 760, 2004). “It would never be
right, in Rawls’s view, to exploit one group of people or even one person for the benefit of
others.” (Munson, 762, 2004). If a health care policy were created under a veil of ignorance,
coverage would provide equal benefits and be available to everyone. The plan would not
only ensure equal opportunity for health coverage but also increase utility for most individual.
If the U.S. implemented a plan that was created under a veil of ignorance our health
care system would be much better off.
Message [676] referenced by [687]. Next Message by Ken is [758].
[687] Dyoung: health care crisis. I would have to agree with Ken [676] when he says “If
a health care policy were created under a veil of ignorance, coverage would provide equal
benefits and be available to everyone. The plan would not only ensure equal opportunity for
health coverage but also increase utility for most individual. If the U.S. implemented a plan
that was created under a veil of ignorance our health care system would be much better off.”
I also think that the health care system is not fair. I attended a lecture yesterday where I was
greatly surprised how unfair the system really is. There are people out there who are doing
their best to provide for their families or themselves and they can’t get basic health care.
It was very sad to hear about all the people who are denied basic care because of a system
that is very one-sided. I learned that some of the treatments needed for someone would only
cost $3.00 a month. We live is a society that waits for individuals to crash before we will
give them help, which I feel is stupid and wrong. When a person crashes completely, it ends
up costing $200,000 plus dollars to help them, but if we had a better health care system
that helped in the preventative side we would only have to spend that $3.00 instead of the
hundreds of thousands. It is unfair and something needs to change in our society to help out
the less fortunate.

434 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: Since you agree with Ken’s (or Rawls’s) principle of “veil of ignorance,” it would have been appropriate to
explain better than Ken what the veil of ignorance is and how it helps improve our health care system. It is also not
obvious how this principle is connected with preventive health care which you are advocating.
Message [687] referenced by [693]. Next Message by Dyoung is [776].
[691] Chris: Wal-Mart’s lawsuit against its own employee. I heard about this story a
few weeks ago and thought it would be a good time to bring it up right now while we are
talking about our health care system. Here is my summary and opinion: There is a Wal-Mart
employee that was recently in a car crash and suffered about $400,000 in medical costs. This
employee was covered by a Wal-Mart health care plan and could barely meet her and her
family’s needs. After the accident, she sued the trucking company who’s driver had crashed
into her to cover the damages. She won the lawsuit and received $417,000 in compensation
to cover the medical costs. So, what does Wal-Mart think of all this? Well, they have a
clause in their contracts saying that they can sue their own employees if they win a lawsuit
for such actions so Wal-Mart decided to sue their employee for $400,000. However, they
have decided to drop the charges because of the negative publicity they were receiving. This
is the only reason in my opinion for why they would drop the lawsuit. I would classify
myself as leaning towards free-market enterprise in most situations. This has gone too far
though. Corporate greed has surpassed a new low and there are thousands of stories out
there that are even worse than this.
http://i2.democracynow.org/2008/4/2/after adverse publicity wal mart drops
Message [691] referenced by [692], [696], and [698]. Next Message by Chris is [809].
[692] Ryoung: Walmart And Its New Low. Responding to Chris’ post [691] on Walmart
and it having pursued a lawsuit against an employee of theirs, I too believe that in this
situation Walmart had definitely crossed the line. I am all for the ability of one to pursue
financial freedom whether it be a coorperation or an individual it is all the same to me but I
first and foremost believe that during this pursuit one should not lose sight of how “Human
Beings” should be treated. This particular case of Walmart claiming a lawsuit against this
employee is obviously a case of losing sight of treating individuals correctly. This is one
example of what gives those who achieve wealth a bad name.
Hans: Ryoung emailed me privately that he wanted this counted as one of his two obligatory detailed feedback
submission. This reminder was necessary. I wouldn’t have guessed that he thought this was a detailed feedback.
He didn’t even give the message numbers he was referring to (I had to do this). Enthusiastic approval without going
into the details what he other person was saying satisfies the requirement of building on others’ submission, but not
that of detailed feedback. You can read more about this in my comments to [533].
Message [692] referenced by [693]. Next Message by Ryoung is [693].
[693] Ryoung: Health Care. Responding to the Health Care post of Dyoung [687] and
Ken [688] sparked my thoughts on our current health care systems. The health care systems
that currently exist are very one-sided like Dyoung mentioned. Not only are they one-sided
but they are also very difficult to obtain in the case of health care insurance packages. I am
self-employed and it is darn near impossible to find a carrier that would cover me, and once
I found some coverage the expense was so great that I wondered if it was even worth it!
I believe that the Health Care crisis is a problem for all demographics in the country, and
something needs to be done! It is as though a basic insurance package is only worth it in
case of a catastrophe! This is not how it should be and I hope to see improvements in the
near future!

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 435
Hans: Your own experience adds to what Ken and Dyoung were saying, but as I said in my remarks to your [692],
this does not satisfy the criteria of “detailed feedback.”
Next Message by Ryoung is [694].
[696] Brandon: RE: Wal-Mart’s lawsuit against its own employee. Wow I cannot
believe this. I had never heard of this story [691] until today and I’m pretty shocked. For
most of this class, I haven’t never really agreed with a lot of Marxian philosophy and its
‘assesment’ of capitalism. I’ll be honest and say that I still agree with capitalism and free
market economics, however, I have never been a supporter of Wal-Mart and its blatant abuse
of producers, consumers and especially its employees. It isn’t even fathomable to think that
a multi-billion dollar corporation really needs to collect $400,000 in ‘lost’ medical expenses
for their own employee covered by their medical plan. We could go on and on about how
terrible Wal-Mart’s practices are and the fine line they walk on a daily basis of unethical
practices, but I actually want to offer a corporation that has done the antithesis and has
succeeded in the corporate world.
I used to work for Starbucks Coffee, for about 4 years, until last May. Say what you
will about Starbucks as a corporation, they would have responded to an incident like this
180 degrees the other way. Employee safety, rights, and welfare are the top priorities in
Starbucks’ policies. Not only do they provide full benefits (medical, dental, 401k, stock
options, etc.) for part-time employees (who work a minimum of 20 hours a week/ or 240
hours per quarter) but they also have a private fund made up of contributions from fellow
employees to assist partners who go through tramatic experiences and need time off from
work but cannot sustain their living expenses. Almost every partner contributes to this “CUP
Fund” usually at a dollar per paycheck. What Starbucks has done put their employees almost
above their own customers. They do not start off new-hires at the base minimum wage but
rather determine minimum pay off of the local standard of living. For example, when I was
hired at Starbucks in Seattle (2003), the minimum wage was around $6.50/hr. I was started
at $7.15/hr, receiving increases in pay every six months. I then moved to Park City, UT in
2004, my pay was raised to $8.75/hr because Starbucks recognized that I was working/living
in an area with higher costs of living. I was also able to contribute 8% of my paycheck to a
401k plan, which Starbucks began matching at 25% after 1 year. I don’t know of any other
corporation that gives back to employees, essentially working in a ‘fastfood’ environment,
as much as Starbucks. Not to mention the $500 tuition reimbursement every semester ($750
after 36 mos., and $1000 after 60 mos.). This should be the model that corporations, like
Wal-Mart, should be following. Instead, their model is to not provide any extra dime to
employess in order to completely maximize profits. To be honest, I do not know why anyone
would even consider applying for a job there.
Message [696] referenced by [697]. Next Message by Brandon is [697].
[698] Matt: Walmart, the true Capitalist. If you have ever been in Walmart it seems
to be a happy place to shop. There are door greeters who are always smiling, clerks who
are always willing to help. They all even have aprons or T-shirts that say, “How may I help
you.” However, underneath all the smiles and happiness lies the truth. It is all a show and a
scam to get your dollar. This “show”, you have to remember, is all run by the capitalist.
The story Chris [691] brought up about Walmart is shocking in one way but not surprising.
Walmart has grown beyond leaps and bounds since they started over 40 years ago. The

436 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
key to their success and profits is due to their cheap prices, as one might say. However these
cheap prices are due to the fact that they, as the capitalist, control the means of production
on all levels. When they hire people it is usually at minimum wage. They also hire workers
to work 30 hour weeks instead of 40 so they don’t have to pay them full benefits. And, they
also sue their own employees (as Chris pointed out) whenever possible. These methods are
all part of how a true capitalist makes a nice profit for themselves. They hire a worker for
their labor-power which they turn into surplus-value. This surplus-value is not in turn given
back to the worker but is instead used to hire more workers and to pay for CEO’s salaries
and lucrative vacations. Our society is based on the principal of pushing others down to get
ahead, and to do whatever it takes to make an extra buck. We should learn from our mistakes
by stopping the capitalist from taking advantage of us. We deserve the surplus-value that the
capitalist has taken away from us.
Next Message by Matt is [774].
[720] Tim: RE: Walmart, the true Capitalist. In response to [689]: I will admit that I try
to stay out of walmart as much as possible, but just because they know how to make a profit
doesn’t mean that they don’t help people out. Do they pay thier employees minimum wage?
Yes, but where else are most of those people going to work? Walmart provides thousands
of jobs for unskilled workers that would not be able to find jobs anywhere else. Sure they
don’t provide the best bennifit packages for thier employees, but at least they provide a way
for people to put a little food on the table. I don’t agree with everything they do either but
before walmart is made out to be the worst thing that ever happened to America, read this,
http://walmartstores.com/media/factsheets/fs 2315.pdf
and it might change your mind a little.
Next Message by Tim is [722].
[745] Inter: Literary critique of feudalism. I just want to present a couple of quotes
from one of my favorite pieces of literature, Utopia by Sir. Thomas More [1515-16].
Just like how Marx is writing a critique of capitalism in Das Kapital, so does Thomas
More write a critique of English feudalism in Utopia. Chapter 26 of Das Kapital also speaks
of the origin of capitalism in feudalism; therefore, I feel these quotes are relevant to our
class discussion. These are critiques of the “commonwealth” by Thomas More through the
character of Raphael.
“What kind of justice is it when a nobleman or a goldsmith or a moneylender, or someone
else who makes his living by doing either nothing at all or something completely useless to
the public, gets to live a life of luxury and grandeur? In the meantime, a laborer, a carter,
a carpenter, or a framer works so hard and so constantly that even a beast of burden would
perish under the load. Although this work of theirs is so necessary that no commonwealth
could survive a year without it, they earn so meager a living and lead such miserable lives
that a beast of burden would really seem to be better off.”
“What is worse, the rich constantly try to grind out of the poor part of their meager
wages, not only by private swindling but by public laws. It is basically unjust that people
who deserve most from the commonwealth should receive least. But now they have distorted

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 437
and debased the right even further by giving their extortion the color of law; and thus they
have palmed injustice off as “legal.”
Next Message by Inter is [754].
[750] Jenn: Subprime market recovery. One of the common debates you hear on the
news these days is what should be done with the subprime mortgage borrowers, or people
upside-down in their houses? I am conflicted on this debate. On one hand, I feel people
should be responsible for the financial choices they make. Period. On the other hand, if they
were misled on the loan market, they should be compensated. However, if you are signing
for a loan, I hope you would read for yourself what you are signing. If the government
intervenes, ultimately I am paying for someone else’s poor planning, which I am not too
happy about. Especially for those sniff poor Californians and their million-dollar houses....
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89505982
Any thoughts?
Message [750] referenced by [782]. Next Message by Jenn is [771].
[782] Kevin: Subprime mess. In response to Jenn [750]:
I listened to the same thing on npr the other day and too am torn on how I feel about that
and all the other economic bail outs that are going on right now.
Personally, I’m torn. Huge companies are getting money handed to them all the time.
Not just now, but have always. Just look at Delta when they declared bankruptcy. If that
happened to a smaller company they would have to close their doors and deal with it. Delta
gets to merge with Northwest and they’re going to a monster company. Makes you think
going bankrupt would be a good business strategy.
All these financial companies too are getting support and help. All the bailing them out is
going to do is let them know they can take risks as large as they want and someone’s always
going to be there to hold their hand.
I feel the same way about individuals. As these people took huge risks (understanding
or not the consequences) they’re learning that someone’s always going to bail them out.
What’s to stop people from doing this again if someone’s going to be there to catch them
when they fall. And who’s really doing the catching? Who’s really bailing them out? The
people responsible enough to pay for what they have, pay their taxes, and let everyone else
take advantage of them.
First Message by Kevin is [1].
[791] Scott: cocktail. What reasons does the government have for not making the drug
cocktail for aids patients more accessible?
This is a question that was asked one of my classes that caught my attention.
Government officials place restrictions on how the United States’ money can be spent
in terms of international aid. Many communitites in Pap New Guinea want a system of
community testing and community based counseling and education. However when groups
attempted to set up these programs international organizations said no to the funding request
because these programs violate individual privacy rights, according to these organizations.
Message [791] referenced by [792]. Next Message by Scott is [835].

438 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
[792] Nstew: RE: cocktail. In response to [791]: It all comes down to money$$! Aids is
a very profitable business for the drug companies and the drug companies are in bed with the
FDA. An aids drug cocktail treatment in the United States costs about $15,000 a year, but
by using generic versions, countries like Brazil and India have dropped the prices of those
cocktails down to $3,000 and $1,000, respectively. In the case of Brazil, the government
offers free treatment and has set up clinics that have improved the lifestyle of AIDS victims.
Unfortunately, the reaction of drug manufacturers has been to curtail these countries’ access
to generic versions of some of the 12 drugs used to make the cocktail. The worldwide
pharmaceutical industry is about a $650 billion a year business while making close to $8
billion a year off of the aids cocktail.
Message [792] referenced by [798]. Next Message by Nstew is [817].
[793] PrivateProperty: Re: Mankind? In response to Nstew [790], I think it is naive
to think that individuals have a simple choice of either working for somebody or starting
your own company. Very few people can just start ‘producing’ and expect to make money.
The market has to be favorable to you. The cold hard truth is that the vast majority of new
enterprises fail within the first year. The success stories you hear about are 1 in a million
cases and mistakenly considered ‘normal,’ when they are in fact rare. You don’t hear about
the losers in the capitalist game. Granted, I’m all for being optimistic and shooting for the
top, and it IS important to take risks. But which vanilla-flavored American dream are people
choosing, anyway? Let’s be realistic with ourselves. Capitalism is largely responsible for
defining what exactly ‘success’ is.
In the case of Wal-Mart, which today is the largest retailer in the world, Sam Walton
started with a small store that was successful because it had lower prices than everybody
else. Because of this low-cost philosophy, Wal-Mart has grown into what it is today: A
retail monstrosity that retards local businesses, often driving them into the ground (though
this only happens because of the people that continue to shop at Wal-Mart regularly). Why
is this bad? Because there is no local ownership, and thus no presence in the community.
Individual owners, however, do have a role and presence here. I am not one of those anti-
Wal-Mart hippies that diligently follows these kinds of things. But, I do care about my
community, and I think it’s important to at least by wary of buying into everything at the
lowest possible price just for the sake of saving money.
This is an important issue, because capitalism does not treat people as ends unto themselves,
as it should be. Rather, money perpetuates. The sad thing is money (and commodities)
is how many people relate to each other, not as human beings.
Next Message by PrivateProperty is [852].
[796] Alcameron: The Sub-prime disaster....intentional? I heard an interesting point
of view about the subprime market that makes me wonder how much of an accident it really
was.
The basis of the subprime mess is that lenders were irresponsible and put buyers in loans
that they could not afford or in high risk loans. These companies are run by intelligent,
successful business men who have had experience in the mortgage industry for decades.
What incentive do they have to offer loans to underqualified applicants or to write high risk
loans? The answer could just be they wanted the buyers to default! Let me explain...

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 439
Many of the loans that are defaulting are risky loans in which a buyer has a low minimum
payment at the beginning of the loan and that payment gradually rises for a pre-determined
amount of time until the full payment has been reached. Many buyers could afford the
initial low payment, but the final payment amount in 5 or 10 years was out of their budget.
To achieve such a low payment at the outset the equity in the home is used to pay the
“remaining” amount of the minimum payment, so essentially your loan is going backwards
for the first few years. Now why would any intelligent business man want to put someone
in a loan that they wont be able to afford 3, 5, 10 years down the road? Well the market
at the time these loans were written was booming. Home values were rising 15-20% every
year. The equity needed to offset the low payments was easily made up for and surpassed
by the appreciation of real estate in the booming market. When a buyer could no longer
afford their loan in X amnt of years they would either sell their home and they lender keeps
all the points and origination fees as profit, or the home-owner defaults on the loan and the
lender now owns a home worth MUCH more than the amount of the loan they have. In the
thriving market it wont be difficult to find another underqualified buyer for the home and eat
up the equity as profit. Not only do you make money on the way in of a purchase, but on
the way out too! Profits come from every direction. Is it realistic that NOBODY saw the
consequences of writing these types of loans? I find it hard to believe that some investors
didnt know what they were doing to people. They simply chose to make as much profit as
possible at the expense of home-owners. Well now their plan has backfired and both the
home-owner and the investor find themselves in a precarious situation.
Next Message by Alcameron is [885].
[798] Slash: Cocktail. In response to [792], one of the major arguments for not having
socialized, or universal health care is limiting the earnings of pharmaceutical companies,
which could effect the ability for them to invest in research, this was the topic that almost
stopped Switzerland from becoming a universalized country in 1994. Today though they are
still one of the top ranking countries for producing new drugs, but I would argue without
some creativity. The U.S. would lose much of its new drug making abilities without them
having such huge earnings, but on the other hand what’s the point of having new drugs if no
one can afford them.
Next Message by Slash is [901].
[799] Papageorgio: Mandatory or not. A debate in one of my classes is on health care
and wether we would like to see a mandatory system or a non mandatory system. Hillary
Clinton is backing a system in which health care is required for everyone it is mandatory
and all will recieve it because they have to. This can be good becuase it ensures all have it
and reduces our or the governments charges when a non insured person goes to the E R. It
is said to be similar to car insurance how it is required in most states for a driver. The other
side is Obama’s plan it to is to help everyone recieve health care but not mandatory it is not
required although it actually is required for young children. Which plan seems better?
Message [799] referenced by [801]. Next Message by Papageorgio is [810].
[801] Paul: Make it mandatory. In response to Papageorgio [799] I believe that the
better option is to make health coverage mandatory for everyone in the united states. By
doing this is should greatly reduce the cost for everybody who already pays for health coverage
and those who truly cannot afford it will be given subsidies by the government. As
Papageorgio stated the government is forced with paying the bill when uninsured people

440 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
visit the emergency room. Another cost saving benefit to a mandate would be the fact that
everybody would be able to receive preventive care, making it much easier to catch certain
illnesses therefore dramatically decreasing the money spent trying to treat which would then
lower the premiums for everyone. There is also evidence that enforcing a mandate would
also greatly reduce the cost of prescriptions.
Next Message by Paul is [866].
[804] Rampton: Mortgage Crisis. Everyone talks about the Mortgage Crisis, the only
real value that is being lost is paper value. I think the Fed should step in and help people to
avoid a crisis. Sure, people should not have gotten into things that they could not afford. The
credit crisis is no longer just a sub-prime problem. As home prices fall and banks tighten
lending standards, people with good, or prime, credit histories are falling behind on their
payments for home loans, auto loans and credit cards at a quickening pace, according to
industry data and economists. The rise in prime delinquencies, while less severe than the
one in the subprime market, nonetheless poses a threat to the battered housing market and
weakening economy, which some specialists say is in a recession or headed for one.
Until recently, people with good credit, who tend to pay their bills on time and manage
their finances well, were viewed as a bulwark against the economic strains posed by rising
defaults among borrowers with blemished, or subprime, credit.
It’s seems like it’s Socialist for the rich but not for the poor. There is so much potential in
the USA. It will only be realized if there is people that are willing to stand up.
Message [804] referenced by [807]. Next Message by Rampton is [844].
[807] Bmellor: RE: Mortgage Crisis. The irony of the whole mess is that like Rampton
said in [804] it is socialism for the wealthy, the first to start crying foul when there are
changes in the minimum wage, or any type of increase in taxes. Now there is a bailout
and these same individuals are benefiting. Where is the “pull yourself up by your boot
straps” attitude? The Fed went before the government and explained why they bailed out
Bear Sterns, likening it to a weak place in a dam. If that banking institution goes it all
goes. I don’t believe it. (How can an administration justify the bail out by bringing up the
“Great Depression,” when it can’t even seem to learn from history enough to keep us out
of a Vietnam-like sequel?) This capitalist society is structured around the purge of those
companies and institutions that can’t keep up. Why are we bending the rules now? I would
bet that Bear Sterns is contributing handsomely to some political campaigns.
Message [807] referenced by [809], [813], and [815]. Next Message by Bmellor is [808].
[808] Bmellor: perfect storm of narcissism. My wife got an e-mail the other day that
was from her sister who she hasn’t spoken with in almost 2 years, a casual e-mail, avoiding
real conversation, inviting her to look at her family’s blog. I am 26 years old however I feel
clueless and geriatric when I look at people’s blogs and myspace pages. I don’t understand
how people my same age, adults, participate in the overdose of self-promotion, this perfect
storm of narcissism technically called “social networking.”
I would never invite people to come into my house and look through my photo album
anytime they want, so why would I think it is a good I idea to invited friends, neighbors,
acquaintances and even perfect strangers to peek into our private lives whenever the feel
like through a blog. For some this isn’t their private lives despite what they portray, it is a

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 441
fabricated reality. Photoshop pictures to make the scene depict the ideal, only using images
that give a false impression. What are the long term effects of this type of society?
To answer this question we have to understand that although the medium may be new, the
symptoms are all too familiar.
They are lies, these fabricated reality blogs are lies. The narcissistic FaceBook pages
boasting, bragging, all fueled by pride. I’m far from being the arbitrator of what is moral
and good. I tell lies, making me familiar with the terrible consequence. I fear that we are
distancing ourselves from true reality and from learning valuable lessons. Things men and
women used to grow out of when they left high school or college now seem to be present
into their thirties, middle age individuals that still behave like adolescents. And what about
today’s children who don’t know how to be bored anymore, they are losing the creativity
associated with being bored. I heard on the news the other day that not having a MySpace
page can be bad for people looking for employment because it makes your employer think
that you have something to hide. WHAT? I do have something to hide my damn privacy. I
don’t believe that news story for a moment.
There are things you can never take back; among those are things you post on the internet,
words you post on the internet. First impressions are lasting impressions no matter the
media.
Children in Davis County are texting images of their private body parts to classmates.
These children now have rap sheets, forced to grow up too early.
Mothers amidst gossiping on their BlogSpot they discuss, “How could this happen?”
gossiping now made easier than ever through their new media. Someone explain to me why
a 14 year old needs a cell phone with a camera?
Same crap different day.
Message [808] referenced by [810] and [817]. Next Message by Bmellor is [811].
[809] Chris: Bear Stearns bailout. Bmellor really got me thinking in his [807] where
he brought up the point that Bear Stearns may contribute handsome sums to political campaigns.
I did a little research on the website and found a few links:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bear%2C Stearns %26 Co.%2C Inc.
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo political donations/James Cayne.php
The second link, Newsmeat, is one of the most interesting websites that I have never heard
of. You can literally type in any person’s name and find out how much they are contributing
to each party/candidate. If Sourcewatch and Newsmeat are reputable sites, then it appears
that Bear Stearns is contributing heavily towards campaign funds and lobbying groups. So
in the end, it looks like there are alternative motives for the bailout.
First Message by Chris is [10].
[810] Papageorgio: RE: perfect storm of narcissism. Maybe you should quite focusing
on the negative an think about the positive, [808] was a real negative post. Maybe its for
some people its a good way to stay in touch with those who live far away or those they dont

442 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
see much anymore, you said your wife has not spoken to her sister in 2 years so maybe she
would enjoy looking at the blog since she does not see her sister much, geez.
Message [810] referenced by [811]. Next Message by Papageorgio is [856].
[811] Bmellor: RE: perfect storm of narcissism. In response to [810]: If an individual
only uses their blog or their myspace page for interacting with individuals that is pretty
tragic. Especially if it is family.
Next Message by Bmellor is [848].
[813] Spawnblade: Just who are they bailing out? Bmellor [807] asks why Bear Stearns
doesn’t pull itself up out of the muck? Of course your average small business owner would
have to simply shut down their business if something went wrong. Due to all sorts of corporate
protections, the corporate heads themselves would not be liable unless they did something
fraudulent. So the only thing that is bailed out for them is their jobs. However, if a
bank really does go down, what will Americans think about it? Sure, everyone with money
deposited in the bank will receive up to 100k from the government, but can you imagine
the cost that would take on the government? Honestly, I believe that would cost more than
it took to ‘bail out’ Bear Stearns. This is because not everyone will withdraw their money
immediately (at least the government hopes.) Aside from simply the economical factor, I
believe strongly that the perception of the people is very important. I have to give inflation
and the strength of the dollar as an example. These two representatives of our economy are
virtually meaningless on their own. Inflations only real detriment is the adaption-lag that
it takes to get used to the price changes (which is relatively small unless we’re talking of
hyperinflation.) Just as the strength of the dollar is merely a representative of our GDP compared
to the amount of money in circulation. Yet you hear people constantly talk about how
these two things are getting worse and worse, and we’re falling into some ‘dark economical
pit’. Sayings like this are the things that give these adjectives their true power, by instilling
images in the minds of the people that affect the way they go about their day to day life.
Message [813] referenced by [815]. Next Message by Spawnblade is [828].
[815] Gerund: Bear Stearns bailout. Spawnblade in [813] is correct that bailing out a
depository bank generally would be cheaper than paying off FDIC insurance for all accountholders.
(Contrary to popular belief, FDIC has inadequate deposits to save anything larger
than a medium-sized bank, payoffs are made by the government, with taxpayers’ money.)
This was shown in the 1970s when a couple major banks failed, and again in the 1980s when
Congress was forced to organize the S&L’s bailouts.
However, Bear Stearns is not a depository bank, it is an investment bank. The function
of the bailout was similar to the bailout of Long Term Capital Management in 1997. The
company suffered serious losses on their mortgage assets, which they were required to write
down under new accounting rules that were adopted early last year. With the write-downs
done, it became evident that the bank was essentially insolvent. If they were allowed to
fail, they would have been forced to liquidate all their remaining assets, which would have
collapsed other financial markets. This was the rationale for the bailout. (Which answers
[807].)
This idea of ‘too-big-to-fail’ has its own problems, introducing moral hazard into the
markets. It is now in every bank’s best interest to expand as much as possible, regardless of

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 443
the risk of failure, because if they do fail they’ll be bailed out, and if they succeed they’re
the Kings of Capital.
First Message by Gerund is [47].
[817] Nstew: RE: perfect storm of narcissism. In response to Bmellor’s post [808] on
narcissism I think the stance that he has taken is entirely too negative, cynical and somewhat
ignorant. You are one of the smart / lucky ones who is married at the age of 26 and never had
to use these types of “networking” sites to connect you with people. There is a huge number
of people who are your age and older using blogs, Facebook, My Space etc... to try and meet
people. If you aren’t into the bar scene or the LDS singles scene and you have graduated
from college and are working, your chances of meeting someone are not very good. I think
it is the adolescence’s who should not be allowed to have Facebook, My Space, and other
such accounts. They are getting into fare more trouble on these internet sites than those who
are your age or older. A lot of families who do not have the luxury of living close to each
other use the blogs and other types of sites to stay in touch and keep each other updated on
what’s going on in their lives. For those people who are blogging and using these sites for
constructive purposes I think they have found it as a great way to meet people.
With that being said I am not oblivious to the fact that there a lot of people out there who
fall directly into the category of what Bmellor is talking about. I happen to know the teenage
kids up in Davis county who were the ones taking pictures of their private areas and sending
them via text message. It has been a horribly tragic situation for them and their families.
Kids in grade school have cell phones these days and in junior high if you don’t have a cell
phone you are among the minority. This is the world we live in and all you can do to change
it is control your actions and influence others to follow suit. But to categorize everyone who
is into blogging, Facebook, My Space, ect... as being narcissistic is an ignorant statement to
make.
Next Message by Nstew is [841].
[822] Bar: social networking. Well in response to Bmellor makes an interesting assessment
about culture here, I agree with him that myspace and facebook are a waste of
time, and are impersonal in one sense, I hate spending time on something like that, but on
the other hand sites like facebook reduce transaction costs a ton, with dating, business, and
one hundred other things it is a great way to increase wealth in society why do you think
that microsoft wants to own facebook so bad? it is a really good thing, now regarding your
wife’s sister not talking to you for two years, it seems that email reduced the weight of that
transaction cost of talking in person or personally so that she could finally talk to your wife
I think that that is actually a pretty great thing. Lots of new things seem trivial, but the
majority of things especially technology exist because they reduce some kind of cost in our
society, dating is a huge thing because if you run the numbers its more likely that you meet
more people through dating sites because of the economies of scale bettering your chances
of meeting someone you like.
Next Message by Bar is [823].
[825] Bar: Organ donation is broken. something that I don’t understnd is why do
organs cost so much money if organ donations are free? I am an organ donor and definitely
think that it is something positive, but why shouldn’t I be able to sell a kidney if I need the
money? If society allowed this, the price of organs would drop off, the cost of a transplant

444 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
would plummet, and society would increase in wealth. The fact of the matter is the market
is broken, it is a hyper socialized industry where good people like to help others through
organ donation, but the government keeps an unaturally low supply on organs by not letting
the market create the socially natural level. A professor of mine suggested a way to get the
market equalibrium price for organs: By placing your organs as collateral on a life insurance
policy, thereby receiving free life insurance, and the insurance company gets your organs
when you die to sell to hospitals. This is a great idea! because the price is extremely high
right now due to a shortage and all types of lists for organ donation, this would create a
surplus making the price of orgnas plummet and lowering medical costs.
Message [825] referenced by [837]. Next Message by Bar is [861].
[837] Ande: Response to Bar on organ donation. In response to Bar [825] about organ
donation being broken, I personally disagree with what was said about the issue on organ
donations and transplants. The system is not broken in any way shape or form. There is
just an extreme demand and a very limited supply on organs to be donated. Yes I agree that
organs are very expensive to get but allowing people to sell their organs is not the answer.
Bar said that selling your organs would help with fixing the system, and partly help out the
economy and bring wealth to people. First off the medical board will not let you sell part
of your body that you could need in the future, as well being able to sell your organs would
destroy the entire program, people would start being killed for organs and people would be
in a sense selling their body parts as a way to create wealth and get out of working. The best
answer to the shortage of organs for transplants in my opinion and the best answer to fixing
the program is technological advances. The more people can donate to hospitals and research
facilities the better. There is no way to get more organs and people will always be needing
transplants, so if technology can keep going eventually science will create artificial organs
that work like the real thing. There is no real answer to the issue but I certainly disagree with
selling your organs as a way to solve the transplant and donor issues and shortages.
First Message by Ande is [101].
[843] Samantha: Fwd: supply and demand only work when the item at stake is a want
not a need. I am shocked by Bar’s assertion that organs should be allowed to be sold so
that more people would be able to get them. Unfortunately Ande did not go far enough, not
only will the medical board not allow organs to sold but the reason we don’t just sell them is
because capitalism itself does not with certain social needs. This is the reason that we have
government regulation, price caps and floors, to set a reasonable price on goods that the
public has to have. If we allowed capitalism to work unhindered in the medical sector, the
few richest among us would get medical treatment because they could pay a billion dollars
for a organ when the next among us could pay substantially less. The typical supply demand
curve doesn’t work when negotiation is one sided because of possible loss of life. Thank
heavens that organ donation does not work that way, but is rather based on the need level of
the patient and not the cost. I agree with Ande, the program isn’t broken we just need more
people to donate.
Next Message by Samantha is [854].
[855] Scott: Uninsured Utahns. 10.6 percent of Utah’s population were uninsured last
year. This is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. Those in Utah that lack health insurance
include: Young adults 19-26, Utahns with incomes at or below 200% of the poverty

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 445
level, those without a high school diploma and Utahns who are of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity.
The majority of the uninsured Utahns had an employer with a sponsored insurance
plan, but most declined the insurance because of the cost or even because they thought they
didn’t need it. Health insurance is something that everyone should have. Each state should
take control and make efficient plans available for everyone.
Some factors that contribute to the increase in uninsured Utahns are the lack of employers
who offer insurance, the high cost of insurance premiums to the employers/employees and
the economic conditions that are affecting all of us today. Fortunately, there is a plan to help
Utahns become insured while still being able to pay their bills. This plan helps employees
get health insurance through their employers health plan. Jennifer Erikson from the Utah
department of Health explains the program, “If an employer offers health insurance, qualified
individuals and families may receive up to $150 per adult each month from the program
to help cover their monthly premium payment.” This plan will play a huge roll in allowing
families to keep paying the bills while still taking care of themselves.
I understand that every state has different issues but we should take Governor Romney’s
approach as a textile. He made it mandatory for every citizen of Massachusetts to be insured.
He did this by allowing them to pick their own individual policies. Gov. Romney said
regarding the issue, “Those who couldn’t afford them, we helped them buy their policies.
And you know what? It cost us no more money to help people buy insurance policies that
they could afford than it was costing us before handing our free care.” By making this type
of policy mandatory for each state, however adjusting a little for each state, I feel we would
see great improvement.
First Message by Scott is [96].
[866] Paul: social security. The current state of the Social Security program in the United
States is in need of a large change. If we do not change the current method of funding the
program soon, generations in the future are the one that are going to suffer the consequences.
The present administrations push to make it more privatized most likely will not produce a
satisfactory impact on the on the funding of the Social Security program. Another vast
problem with the existing system is that it favors the wealthy when it is the poor that depends
more on the money provided for them through Social Security.
The annual spending on Social Security will exceed what it generates through taxes in the
year 2018, increasing the already large deficit. As a result, the trust fund will be empty by
2042. One big reason for this is that today there are only 3.3 people paying Social Security
for every one person using it, compared to sixteen people paying in 1950. The easiest way
for us to fix this problem would be to increase taxes.
Next Message by Paul is [867].
[869] Andy: Health Care. Should health care reform be undertaken at the state or federal
level? The majority of Americans under the age of 65 receive health insurance coverage
through their employers and almost all the elderly are covered through Medicare, however
46.1 million nonelderly Americans lacked health insurance in 2005. The number of uninsured
continues to grow steadily, and most of the growth in the uninsured occurred among
adults and those with low incomes, between 2004 and 2005 1.1 million of the 1.3 million had

446 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
family incomes of less than twice the poverty level. The majority of the growth in the uninsured
since 2000 has been among people earning less that $38,000 a year for a family of four.
Overall two-thirds of the uninsured are low-income with one-third living in poverty, which
is earning less that 19,000 a year for a family of four. So health care should be reformed
on the federal level and also on the state level. On the federal level, to try and decrease the
overall number of uninsured people in the U.S. by creating plans that individual states can
reform their own individual health policy. Each state is different. Take Utah for example:
in 2007 there were about 287,200, or 10.6 percent of the population was uninsured with
87,800 being children and 101,900 adults who had full time jobs. These numbers may be
better or worse than other states so they may have to have a different policy to accommodate
to different situations. So I believe that it is also very important that each individual state
also reforms their policy to better help their own situation.
Message [869] referenced by [893]. Next Message by Andy is [870].
[875] Bmellor: Self fulfilling the imminent doom. The company I work for is owned by
the employees. We are not all management of course, and some own more of the company
than others but there isn’t one main guy that I would call the boss, I have never seen anyone
get fired. Nor do can I think of anyone that should be fired. Everyone works well together,
as has been the case for the last 2 years. Over that time though the company has grown at
least 50% bigger, by that I mean a firm of 60 people has now become a firm of around 120
people in just two years. With this growth has come a lot profit. Even those of us on the “low
end” have gotten bonuses every 3 months right on queue... until December. It just stopped,
our happy meetings of “Good Job,” “Way to go Guys, here is some more money” suddenly
changed... a substantial number of people have quit. We are losing money.
“Well there is recession looming in the midst, this should be expected.” But that is just
it, there is too much work for even our staff to do... we are in a “recession proof” industry.
But yet the staffing charts with respect to hours billed are skewed. When the numbers are
added up we are getting feedback that suggests that we have 12 too many people. Employees
work hard and govern themselves, and when they are done with their task they come and get
more work, they do this because they are not necessarily working for one individual, they
are working to make the “whole” succeed.
Why are we losing profits? Here is my theory: when you get in the car on your way to
work, you hear about all the signs that our society is destroying itself, the world is getting
too warm, the war will never end, gas will never stop being expensive, your owe more on
your house than it’s worth, and most important “you still have your job but plan on losing
it soon.” So we get out of cars after hearing all of this and we go to work, and while we are
working we think “Once I finish this job... will they give me another one? And if not what
will I do? I should slow down I get paid the same and they can’t lay me off as long as I am
working.” never mind the fact that the company is backed up and we need people to work
harder than ever. I think of this as self fulfilling the “eminent doom.” There are real threats
to our society the above listed are all true, but we must not lose optimism.
80 years ago all we had to “fear was fear itself” the same is true today.
First Message by Bmellor is [46].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 447
[880] Wade: Which country to buy from? The United States has imported raw materials
and oil from third world Countries now for years. It used to be that the United States would
import from Countries such as Canada, European Nations and Japan. It is amazing how the
choice of which country the United States buys oil from can affect so many lives. Third
world countries don’t benefit from U.S. oil purchases. GDP from foreign Countries has
shifted from 2.5 percent in 1990 to 6 percent in 2006. And the biggest imports come from
Countries with the lowest wages. The wages are a small percent of what they should be, and
the rising purchases of oil and other raw materials, is raising the work hours of the laborer
and lowering the wages even more.
Next Message by Wade is [881].
[881] Wade: Christmas Time. During the Holidays last year sales only rose by 3.6
percent! That is the lowest performance in the past four years. And even one third of that
was from gas purchases. That is horrible news for our economy; we are very dependent on
free-spending shoppers for our growth. This is a result of delaying hiring plans, reduction in
work hours and laying off of workers. Once a downturn starts in our economy it is very hard
to stop. Many Americans are not prepared for tough times. The past six years American
economic growth has been great but this year it hasn’t gone as well. The ease of borrowing
money in the past few years has made it easy for Americans to live beyond their means. Now
we are seeing the results of what happens when times get going tough.
Next Message by Wade is [882].
[882] Wade: Tax Refunds? Tax-Refunds?
In trying to help slumping economy by giving it a jolt, Congress has turned to different
familiar ways that have worked in the past Economic downfalls. Which measure will work
best to accomplish the goal of bringing the Economy back to where it should be? Funnel
more money to States, or spend more on programs like unemployment insurance? Tax rebates?
These are all factors, but tax rebates seem to look more appealing, they are designed
to give money back to consumers, hoping that they will spend the money received giving a
boost to manufacturers of consumer goods, instead of saving it to pay off debts. But as we
learned in 2001 with the tax rebates a small sum of Americans, only 22%, spent their rebates
immediately. Would it benefit the Economy to give tax-rebates to Americans again?
Next Message by Wade is [883].
[884] Andy: Social Security. The current state of Social Security funding is constantly
debated in the United States. In my opinion to this topic of Social Security I believe that
currently we do not have a problem, but in the distant future we may run into some difficulties.
The projections show that there will likely not be a problem, but if there is a problem
we can currently do things to change what will happen in the future.
Firstly, it has been projected that people will be able to withdraw benefits until the year
2047, but after that there may be a problem. Many of the projections that have been made
by the SSA have been proven to be incorrect. For instance the projections over ten years ago
said that Social Security would be predicted to end in the year 2030. Our current numbers
have disproved this projection. The SSA has been proven to be quite conservative on their
projections about Social Security.

448 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Secondly, I believe that after the year 2047 we may not be able to receive our full benefit
pay. There would still be enough money to pay out 74% to everyone, but the 1935 SSA Act
guarantees that we receive a 100% payout. Even this prediction of only receiving 74% of
our benefits is projected if we don’t have any economic growth or productivity, which would
be highly unlikely. The SSA would have to pay the excess 26% out of its trust fund, which
is highly unlikely. If this were to happen we would have to require that there is no economic
growth between now and 2047.
Thirdly, if there are even projections that by the year 2047 the Social Security taxes will
be less that the Social Security pays, we can do something now to help prevent this. Some
things that have been discussed are increasing taxes on some things. In my opinion I believe
that we should tax the upper class on some of the things that they don’t pay taxes on. For
example when the wealthy receive cars, home, and other things for pay they don’t have to
pay tax on it. I believe by taxing these people this would help the problem of even wondering
if there would be enough tax money to pay out the benefits. Also, I believe by taxing their
payroll would help the system benefit greatly.
There was a discussion about this with Barack Obama and he stated in his argument
about Social Security: “Social Security is not in crisis; it is a fundamentally sound system,
but it does have a problem, long-term. We’ve got 78 million baby boomers, who are going
to be retiring over the next couple of decades. That means more retirees, fewer workers
to support those retirees. We are going to have to do something about it. The best idea
is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, potentially exempting middle-class folks, but making
sure that the wealthy are paying more of their fair share, a little bit more.” This argument
helps support my issue in that I also believe that we aren’t currently in trouble with Social
Security. I believe that in the distant future we might run into some difficulties and by taxing
the wealthy now we are able to assure in the future that we won’t have any problems.
Message [884] referenced by [886]. Next Message by Andy is [888].
[886] Nstew: Social Security. In response to [884], the U.S. Social Security system is in
need of reform. Its trustees forecast that, absent changes, contributions will fall below benefits
in 2012, and the system’s trust fund will be exhausted in 2030. Many have discussed
achieving system’s solvency by raising taxes and cutting benefits, but recently a more fundamental
reform has been proposed, namely, “privatization” of some or all aspects of Social
Security. Before analyzing whether the public or private sector can better achieve its underlying
goals we need to look at some of the more salient features of the current system. It
provides a forced savings, or income that cannot be spent prior to retirement. It provides
insurance against earnings loss, disability, and longevity. It redistributes income from high
to low lifetime earners. It is mainly an unfunded, or pay-as-you-go, system. It is controlled
and administered by the government and it is a defined-benefit plan. The Social Security
system is a collective one. Each worker’s Social Security taxes are not put aside to pay his
or her eventual benefits; instead, they are used to finance the system in general, largely for
current retirees. This is known as a pay-as-you-go system, which is where current workers’
taxes are used to pay pensions to current retirees. We are rapidly approaching the time where
the amount of people taking out of the Social Security fund will be greater than those who
are putting into it. The baby-boomers are creeping up on retirement and they make up 26%
of the population where as the group before them who are now between the ages of 55 - 69

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 449
make up only 12% of the population. So as you can see we are headed for some very tough
times keeping up with social security in the not so distant future.
Next Message by Nstew is [892].
[889] Rampton: American Idol. I find it funny that Carly Smithson had won rave reviews
from all 3 judges – but apparently not votes from viewers – after performing “Superstar”
from “Jesus Christ Superstar” on Tuesday’s Andrew Lloyd Webber-themed performance
show she was booted tonight from the show. Apparently, people did not agree with the
judges but the masses voted and this is what came about. I also find it interesting that
President Bush and first lady Laura Bush appeared in a taped message to announce the “Idol
Gives Back” charity event had raised more than $65 million for underprivileged children. In
such a capitalistic society there are so many things that we could do to help others
Next Message by Rampton is [890].
[893] Nstew: Health Care. In response to [869]: I am among the millions of Americans
who pay exorbitant insurance premiums every month and feel that quality of care is going
down as price goes up. There is no doubt that the growth rate of health care expenditures
must be curbed both as a cost to society and a cost to patients. Many people have put their
faith in the idea of government control of the health care system. Many point to Canada or
other countries that have gone that route. I think going that route would be a decision we
would strongly regret. Most industrialized nations on earth have a distinct health care system
and the common thread throughout the rest of the industrialized world is that government
is the health care provider or at least a last resort. Although there are many advantages to
having a single-payer-system, I believe the disadvantages outweigh them.
I like the idea of socialized medicine in theory but not in practice. I feel the most important
aspect in any industry is competition and individual ingenuity, which allow the consumer
to receive the best possible service for the best price. I feel we have the best doctors and
technology readily available for us here in the United States because we have a free market.
Next Message by Nstew is [896].
[900] Wade: Future Us Economy? With the Economy as bad as it is, it isn’t good that
the national debt is at an all time high. What can be done to help this problem? There are
many ideas, it seems that everyone has an idea of how to help the debt go away, but what is
the answer? We are taught in Economics that the Economy is always changing, GDP and
GNP ranges change yearly. The United States was doing great the past few years, businesses
were booming, mortgages were being taken out as if they were free. Lots and lots of people
were making lots and lots of big bucks. Then what happened? With all the mortgages being
given as low as they were, people were refinancing, and spending their equity like it was
play money. As soon as the Economy started a downward turn the media caught wind of it
and had a hay day with it. People are now saving their money in these thought] times, and
when that happens the circular money flow takes a big hit! When people aren’t spending
or consuming, producers aren’t making the money they should and in return this hurts the
consumers. We are headed into a recession, two annual quarters of loss. What needs to
happen to turn our Economy around? We know that an Economy is like a roller coaster and
is always going up and down. As we sit back and watch we will see that in the next few
years our Economy will level out and all will be fine and dandy!
Message [900] referenced by [902]. First Message by Wade is [188].

450 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
[902] Slash: Re: Future Us Economy? Way to hit the nail on the head Wade everything
you’re saying in [900] is true. I too see the economy as a problem. I plan to make a change
of this downward trend in any way I can, that might only be at the poles, but thats a start.
Way to study up on the topic and may this next year bring you peace and happiness.
First Message by Slash is [95].
889 is 889 in 2007SP, 889 in 2009fa, 889 in 2011fa, and 889 in 2012fa:
889 Course Evaluation Econ 5080/6080
[862] Dentist: final thoughts. well i would just like to add a final thought or two on the
class, and those of you who are still checking in may feel inclined to do the same.
i must admit i enjoyed it more than i had supposed i would. there seemed to be a much
more continuous dialogue and debate than in previous courses i have had that were similar
to this one. and for all those that contributed to this process, i offer my thanks.
similarly, i must compliment Hans on this course structure as it seemed to greatly aid the
steady flow of opinion and insight. i will admit that i had a difficult time keeping track of
so many deadlines and criteria, but as it has exposed a weakness that i had in my academic
habits, i can take it as another lesson that i learned.
while i may not be ready to adhere to Marx’s philosophies, at least i can now say that
i understand a few of them. and that this has allowed me to be a more properly informed
individual. i now have a much greater perspective of the world in which i live and a more
open mind.
blah blah blah and so what, right? for those who happen to read this, i would finally like
to say, good luck in personal academic pursuits whatever they may be and wherever they
may take you. i hope all of us can take time to enjoy and reflect on the great opportunity it
is to get a college education, and the countless ways that it will enrich our lives.
Message [862] referenced by [868]. Next Message by Dentist is [863].
[863] Dentist: final, final thoughts. and good luck to all during their finals!
First Message by Dentist is [203].
[868] PrivateProperty: more final thoughts. Thank you Dentist [862] for sharing your
thoughts and perspective. I’d like to share mine.
I came to this class knowing next to nothing about Marxism, and I’ve come away with an
understanding of capitalism. Not many people really understand how capitalism operates.
And most that do are the most avid capitalists of all, the Captains of industry, the owners
of production we talk about in class. To understand what capitalism is and say ‘no, this is
not right’ is very powerful,. The things I have learned in this class have affirmed underlying
feelings that I’ve had.
I have had a great experience in this class and I want to thank everyone for their contributions.
Everyone who has let their voice through and shown their passion on such issues.
We are all in this together, and what we talk about is human issues. Yes there are ‘laborers’
and ‘managers’ in the economy, but one just as well may be the other. The distinction is not
important.

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 451
Remember, capitalism is a game that we are forced to play from birth. There are other
games out there, but it’s hard to see that. Many of you are concerned about being successful
in this world (I know I am), but it’s important to not let the capitalist framework define what
success is for you.
And that being said, best of luck on finals everybody. It’s time for summer.
Final Grading Note by Hans: It is my pleasure to write this letter of reference for (PrivateProperty). He took
only one class from me, the writing intensive Econ 5080 in the Spring 2008. The class is a close reading of Marx’s
Capital, which is not only an economic but also a philosophical work. Emphasis was on Marx’s methodology,
whose depth realist and structuralist view of society is often difficult to grasp for students steeped in modern
methodological individualism. The students have to make written comments about the readings, and also respond
to each other.
(PrivateProperty) loved this class and dove right into it, doing far more than the minimum required. And he
excelled. Re-reading his essays and contributions to the free discussion was a pleasant and moving experience
for me. (PrivateProperty) is charming and passionate. He combines conservative and liberal points of view in his
profound humanism. He does not try to copy Marx but picks and chooses. He clearly understands that Marx did
not criticize people but social relations, and made this his main plank. He had a good understanding of Marx’s
difficult philosophical arguments and used them to enrich his own system of values. He spoke with a voice that has
to resonate with the mainstream but incorporates deep ethical and also social-critical points of view without being
a pessimist about society. I think Law School is a good choice for him. He has the stuff to be a memorable and
impressive a lawyer or judge. I can recommend him whole-heartedly. He is a robust worker who will not disappoint
you.
First Message by PrivateProperty is [110].
[899] FacistFrank: thanks all. This is now my fourth completed year at college, and I
think this class may have been the most influential one I have taken. Thanks everybody, for
your open minds and willingness to discuss and get further to the truth. Good luck to all in
your endeavours whether they be of the nature of this society and culture, or of another. A
lot of Marxism has rubbed off on me.
Karl Marx rules!
Final Grading Note by Hans: In June 2010 Hans wrote a letter of reference for FacistFrank. Here is an excerpt:
FacistFrank did not need much handholding. He is self-motivated and intellectually curious. He does not always
follow the majority opinions in Utah, but he is very aware of the counterarguments against his positions and careful
to say only things things he can back up scientifically.
Since you are also asking about his weaknesses, perhaps it can be considered a weakness that his writing style
does not do justice to the depth of his thinking. He writes like he speaks and does not spend much time editing or
polishing his formulations afterwards. He also makes more spelling errors than one would expect from someone
who is intellectually as sophisticated as he. It is my hunch that this disregard of how he presents himself works
against him, that he does not always get enough credit for his intellectual work because he does not try to sound
smarter than the next guy.
First Message by FacistFrank is [89].
935 is 350 in 2005fa, 350 in 2007SP, 935 in 2008fa, 935 in 2009fa, 935 in 2010fa, 350 in
2011fa, and 350 in 2012fa:
935 Marx and the Environment
[108] Ken: global warming. Humans may not be the only factor in the global warming
situation. However, industry growth and human negligence are increasing the environmental
problem. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, fluorinated
gases are dispersed into the environment because of human activity and some natural
processes. Human activity is increasing the rate in which the greenhouse gases are being

452 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
released into the environment. Human activity can not be blamed entirely for the global
warming problem, however it is a large factor in the global warming problem.
Next Message by Ken is [112].
[195] Ande: Global Warming. Global warming is one of the most talked about topics
in today’s society and it seems everyone you talk to about it has their own theory on the
issue. If you read all the discussions on the issue it proves my point, everyone thinks a little
differently about the issue, and each person thinks their theory is the best. I feel as though it
is possible that global warming is a real thing, but it is not anywhere as big of issue as society
has made it out to be. There is some evidence that it is a real thing but it is not proven, I
mean look at the winter we are having it’s a banner year. I do feel as though the summers
have gotten a little bit warmer year after year, but that is because the world is becoming
more populated, just like when you put a lot of people in one room, that room is going to
get warmer from everyone being in there but the walls are not going to come crashing down
just because it is getting warmer in that room. The world is not getting overly hot, the whole
polar ice caps melting is the only thing that I think we need to worry about. That is due to
the major use of fossil fuels but if it was that big of an issue the government would be finding
out a solution to stop the melting ice caps, I mean we put people on the moon if we wanted
to stop ice from melting the government would figure something out and stop the melting.
So overall, yes global warming is definitely a real thing but it is not as big of an issue as
people make it out to be. If it was that major of an issue society and the government would
be a lot more worried about that than the current war in Iraq, or what reality t.v. show will
come out next.
Message [195] referenced by [220], [224], and [269]. Next Message by Ande is [361].
[220] Raynold: RE: Global Warming. In response to [195], a little insight i know about
this problem we call global warming is that the heat, or CO2 emissions we the earth is giving
off, is tearing up our ozone layer which i believe protects us from harmful things that lay in
the outer space such as ultra-violet light rays! Because we are burning lots of fossil fuels
emitting CO2, it joins the O3 in our stratesphere ozone causing it’s layer to get too thin
which can cause serious problems for us such as burning our skin more which can lead to
skin cancer, and even heating up the earth. I feel that keeping an eye on global warming is
definately important for us now because it can become serious for our future generations.
We should keep the problem controlled and continue to find other ways to help it so that it
won’t grow in the future.
Message [220] referenced by [224] and [272]. Next Message by Raynold is [352].
[224] Jason: More Global Warming. Raynold [220] is right about one aspect of global
warming, CO2 emissions are bonding with the O3 in the ozone to tear it apart. However
there are several causes of global warming, and only one facet of it is necessarily human
involved. We are definitely making our presence on earth known though and at least some
sort of plan to reduce it would not be a bad thing. The main reason I wanted to write this
was to address a common misconception I saw in Ande’s [195]. He mentioned the record
winter we have been having here for snowfall and how global warming must not be that big
of a deal then. Global warming doesn’t always imply a gradual increase everywhere on the
planet. The earths climate is one of the most complex systems we’ve tried to understand and
causing certain parts of the planet to heat up could very well lower the temperature of other
parts. Kind of like how global warming caused a huge snow storm in the entire northern

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 453
hemisphere in “The Day After Tomorrow”. I’m sure Hollywood took ample liberties with
that movie, but the point still stands. Besides, even though we are having a record snow
season, it hasn’t been overly cold, whereas last winter around this time it was painfully cold.
We didn’t have much snow though.
Message [224] referenced by [225]. Next Message by Jason is [315].
[225] Sparky: Global Warming bad description. Jason in [224] brings up a good point.
Global Warming is a very misleading name, has it implies that everything is heating up, I
took a alternative energy class at the U from Dr. Peterson, a very very eccentric physics
professor (but aren’t they all!), who refered to it as global climate change, due to the fact
that the world’s ecosystem is so complex and so variable that even the slightest change in
one aspect could have adverse impacts on a seemlingly unrelated aspect. From taking his
class, which I strongly encourage everyone to take, I learned the different opportunities that
lie in the future of the energy sector and how humans can build energy producing capabilities
that do not harm the Earth but can even help the Earth! But the point he drove home most
was that there are going to be global changes, some areas will be colder (perhaps that is
happening here in Utah), some warmer, some wetter (the greening of the Sahara), and some
drier, which is why global climate change should be used when discussing this topic, rather
than global warming.
Next Message by Sparky is [319].
[226] Chris: unstoppable global warming. While we are on the topic of global warming,
I would just like to suggest a book that everyone should read. The book is entitled,
“Unstoppable Global Warming” by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. You can find this book at
the Salt Lake County Libraries and probably at the University Library (I have not looked).
The book presents a very detailed look at the Earth’s current state along with that of the past,
and future. It discusses the Earth’s climate cycle and is chalked full of references. Please
check it out if you find this a topic of interest.
Next Message by Chris is [286].
[233] Andy: Global Warming free discussion. The topic of global warming brings a lot
of opinions. Probably the most popular being that of Al Gore’s, that the world is doomed
unless we make drastic changes in our lives that would cost us billions of dollars. I agree,
there is indisputable evidence that certain glaciers are melting and ocean temperatures are
rising ever so slightly. But there is also evidence that is not brought about mainly because
Al Gore does not focus on it in his documentary: “An Inconvenient Truth.” If you do your
research, you’ll find that the ice mass in Antarctica is actually higher than it has been in the
past century. Also known among weather habits is that the weather also goes in cycles. These
are more just opinions based on websites and information i have heard that are contrary to
the common opinion that the world is doomed. I believe we must do our part to conserve
energy and find cleaner sources of power, but disagree that the world is facing its immediate
end unless we change. Don’t panic, just be smart.
Message [233] referenced by [272] and [293]. Next Message by Andy is [366].
[260] Trailrunner: Are you Green? I have always found it important to be a person
who is concerned about and works toward a sustainable future. I am from San Diego and
we began recycling programs there many years ago. Not only for the usual recyclables like
aluminum cans and newspapers, but also glass, plastic and yard waste. Thus, when I moved
to Salt Lake a few years ago and they didn’t have these programs in my neighborhood, I was

454 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
a bit saddened. Luckily the blue recycle trash cans became available for a fee shortly after I
moved here and they are now beginning a yard waste program as well.
In San Diego, I worked for a solar heating company for many years and my family has
a home in Baja California in which we use solar to heat the hot water and photovoltaic
cells to generate all of our electricity. It really is very easy to be “green” – at least in some
small ways. I have recently received my Master Gardener certificate which continues to
keep me focused on the earth and ways to keep things growing and help create a healthier
environment in which to live.
Here at the University of Utah we have the “Office of Sustainability.” The Office of Sustainability
views sustainability as “balancing the relationships between environmental stewardship,
economic development, and social responsibility while meeting the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations of people and ecosystems to
meet their own needs.” I had heard of this office in the past, but had not really given much
thought to what they were all about until I received an email yesterday about an upcoming
workshop. The department I work for is giving out 10 scholarships to employees or students
of the Health Science Campus if they want to attend the workshop. As I began to read about
it, I found myself excited at the possibility of being able to attend.
The workshop is titled “Fostering Sustainable Behavior.” The Office of Sustainability
states that if you design or fund programs to encourage individuals or businesses to engage
in behaviors beneficial to a sustainable future (such as energy and water efficiency, waste
reduction, watershed protection, transportation, etc.), this workshop will have relevance for
you. Here is the link for more information about the workshop in case any of you have an
interest in this subject.
http://www.sustainability.utah.edu/dmmworkshop.htm
With all of the talk about global warming that seems to be a part of our lives these days, I
thought there might be a few people out there that would find this information relevant and
of value.
Message [260] referenced by [334]. Next Message by Trailrunner is [274].
[272] Matt: Global Warming – Wake Up! Andy in [233] has some good points, but
I do believe there is more evidence for Global Warming than not. According to scientists
from around the world (and Al Gore) Global Warming is causing our ozone layer to deplete.
This layer is protecting us from ultra violet light produced by the sun as Raynold says in
[220]. The ozone layer can be viewed as a vital resource for life, and should be protected at
all costs. If it is destroyed life on earth will not be sustainable. As Global Warming begins
to kick in, the world’s weather is changing. Extreme weather events are becoming more
common and more intense. Seasons are less steady and some agriculture is less reliable.
The majority of us don’t notice these changes because of our lifestyles and technologies.
We drive from our garages to our covered parking spots at work; we never get good and wet
anymore from a rain storm. If it’s too hot outside, turn up the air conditioning. Personally
I have not noticed the changes in our weather, and agriculture, I dare say most Americans
have. Perhaps that’s why we are doing nothing to stop this growing problem. I think we can
all counter global warming by changing one simple thing, the vehicles we drive. Why would

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 455
you need to drive 4x4 all-terrain vehicles to get to the supermarket or school (because we
live in Utah)? So in order for us to counter global warming we need to alter our way of life
by driving less miles and fewer gas inhalers. We must think and do things differently. As
Marx would say, the only thing driving up consumption is our lifestyles under a capitalistic
society.
If we don’t start making changes now we are not only going to further Global Warming
but we are also going to run out of our fuel supply, Oil! Drilling for more oil and building
more power plants is not the answer to the problem. By using more fuel and energy we
are only causing more pollution and we are using up all of the worlds fossil fuel. We must
wisely use our resources without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their needs. Arguably, no generation should inherit less human and natural wealth than the
one that precedes it. Each generation inheriting the earth should take care to use natural
resources reasonably and ensure that life on our planet will continue prosperously. We must
all do our part by making changes in our lives because ultimately, it is up to us to decide
the future that we which to have for ourselves, future generations, and most important our
children.
Next Message by Matt is [340].
[293] Wasatch: what is being done? Global warming!!! I really enjoyed Andy’s comments
[233]. It does seem that society is going a little over board with the whole thing
though. I did see Al Gore’s documentary, which I think was more of a political/money making
move than a representation of his true concern for the planet and it’s people. Although he
might have underlying motives for producing the movie, it did bring up some concerns about
the large amounts of CO2 emissions, but the panicked response to this problem doesn’t seem
like the best way to fix the problem. I really think there are too many people that love to
claim that the sky is falling but fail to do much about it. Instead of arguing over the fact that
it might be happening or not seems like a waste of energy and time that should be used to
fix the problem. More bite and less bark. What are you doing to fix the problem? Cause if
someone that drives a car that runs on more than a battery and is truly worried about global
warming better park it in the garage and buy themselves a good pair of walking shoes.
Next Message by Wasatch is [375].
[301] Jenn: What can YOU do? In this class, we have had lots of discussions on the
environment. Many of us have confirmed that we are not headed in a good direction. Since
this is sort of a grass-rootsish class, I have a proposal to make. My raised awareness of the
state of our global enviornment has magnified my need to be accountable to actually make
changes in my life to reduce my carbon emissions. However, it is so easy (for me as well as
others) to just fall back to where you are comfortable - your car, your warm-in-the-wintercool-in-the
summer house, your nice hot shower. I would like to have some sort of group of
people that I could be accountable to so I really stick to my guns with the changes I make.
And email is a good forum. Here are some of my ideas....
The take-the-bus-to-work group
The five-minute-shower group
The save-money-to-buy-a-low-water-toilet group

456 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
The no-bottled-water group
The reduce-my-junk-consumption group
Although these all sound kind of silly, they would make a real difference. Anyone interested
in joining me in getting my a...ummm...... bum out of bed 15 minutes earlier to take
the bus (or just calling me out on my laziness)? Although if I shorten my shower, I could
offset the sleep deficit....hmmmm
Message [301] referenced by [334]. Next Message by Jenn is [332].
[322] Hans: Students Will Meet with Representative Matheson to Discuss Solutions to
Global Climate Change. Here is an announcement from the University office of Sustainability.
If you are interested in participating in the meeting on Thursday, please email or call
Elsa Gustavson at elsava85@gmail.com or (801) 585-9352.
Hans.
Here is a message by Craig Forster:
As a follow-on to the U’s Focus the Nation effort, a team of students from the U of Utah
has arranged to meet with Representative Matheson on Thursday February 21 at 2:45 pm.
Their goal is to discuss possible solutions to global climate change (global warming) with
Representative Matheson. Please circulate this information to students at the U, and at other
Utah institutions of higher education, who might want to participate.
For additional information, and to indicate how many students are interested in participating
in the meeting (a head count is needed to size the meeting room), please contact Elsa
Gustavson at elsava85@gmail.com (801) 585-9352
Thank you for helping Utah students to engage their political leadership in discussing the
critical issue of global climate change.
Craig Forster
Interim Director
Here is a message from Elsa Gustavson:
From: Elsa Gustavson
Sent: Thu 2/14/2008 2:16 PM
Subject: Meeting with Representative Matheson
Good news everyone! We got a meeting with Representative Matheson at his Salt Lake
Office on Thursday February 21st at 2:45pm.
If you would like to join us in a conversation with our representative about the results of
Focus the Nation and how we can work together in Utah for solutions to global warming,
please meet us in advance at the Office of Sustainability on campus at 1:15pm on Thursday
the 21st. At that time we will prepare our comments, have a brief lobby-type training and
then carpool over to his office.
I do need to know how many people will be coming so that Matheson’s staff can prepare
an appropriately sized room and so we have enough room for everyone in a car, so please

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 457
RSVP ASAP!!! Please feel free to forward this invitation on to other students who may
be interested and participated in Focus the Nation so we have people to talk about their
experiences!
Hope to hear from you soon!!!
Cheers,
Elsa Gustavson
Intern
Office of Sustainability
University of Utah
Next Message by Hans is [357].
[334] Spawnblade: Well, I suppose I could... ...Walk to class (BrrrrrrrrRrr...) - group.
(Perhaps this would lead to a freeze ourselves group?)
...Turn off the water while brushing your teeth - group.
...Turn off the water while shaving - group.
...Turn off unnecessary lights - group.
...Population growth-rate zero/negative - group.
Generally whenever I should be focusing on something, my mind enjoys wandering to
the afflictions we’ve placed as humans on the planet. As Jenn [301] says, these things
sound silly, but really they can help the environment. I really don’t believe any huge impact
will occur without government intervention (As if that will happen at this rate), or a large
movement. I have taken a class on Climate Change and gone to several outside lectures
regarding the subject. I feel like many others taking this class that it is fact, and that for
some odd reason people are either denying it, or trying to hide this looming dilemma.
Am I green? [260]
No Trailrunner, most definitely I’m not. At this point in time no human is, though to
survive we’re essentially forced to not be green. But maybe a shade of yellow, I’d like to
think my concern for the environment has some shade of color in me. I know I’d like to get a
website launched among the thousands of others that pushed for Green. Or perhaps instead
I should focus on the other side of Green. Brown maybe? It seems negative critique is a
far more effective political tool than positive. Odd the way society works, flawed in its own
way as many here say, but I must disagree when people say it is broken.
Say ‘no’ to bottled water!... Well either that, or don’t complain about gas prices which
are actually much less than that of your equivalent source of plastic-tasting refreshment ;).
(To whomever this statement may concern.)
Next Message by Spawnblade is [337].
[485] Bmellor: A solution to create an America independent of oil. Oil prices fluctuate
greatly from month to month year to year. OPEC gets together and makes decisions on what
the prices will be, and in my opinion they agree on the same reason for raising the price:
war, hurricanes, political unrest... they usually don’t mention greed.

458 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
My plan is that we always pay 3.50 cents a gallon or some other fixed price. (I am just
pulling that number out of hat, there is absolutely no calculation in that number). When gas
prices drop a tax would kick in, to keep the gas price where it is at. The reasoning behind
this is to initially cause the consumer some pain, but through this pain the consumer changes
habits i.e.: walks more, carpools more, and there is greater demand for technology that runs
off alternative fuel sources. This week it was reported for the first time in 29 years the United
States has actually cut fuel consumption by 1%, we are changing our habits. Slowly it sunk
in that the consumption of gasoline is not only harming our environment but also harming
our way of life. Call me cynical but I don’t think its drowning polar bears causing people to
buy less gas, I think it is the fact that people are sick of paying $3.00+ for gas. (However by
no means am I denying that Global Warming is taking place, I just don’t think that is what
is making people changing their habits.)
In 1998, 10 years ago, we were paying 89 cents a gallon for gasoline here in Utah. What
if we go back to that even for just few months? OPEC may still be able to do that. What
happens then? The progress we have made over the last few years will die. Hybrid cars will
go back to being embarrassing to drive, supply of that technology will decrease and hybrids
will become so expensive that no one will buy them. But if when OPEC tries to kill off the
competing alternative fuels by cutting prices, the United States Government could step in
and place a tax on the gasoline and we as consumers won’t even notice the difference. Gas
stays the same price as always. OPEC might try and fight back by raising the price above
the tax price... In which case they are hastening the demise oil usage. The higher the price
goes for oil the faster the technology will develop to take its place. As proven by this year’s
record high gas prices and the sustained decrease in the US’s fuel consumption, we will get
by with less gas if it gets too expensive. 2007 proved that gasoline may not be as inelastic
as we have suspected.
Message [485] referenced by [486] and [487]. Next Message by Bmellor is [566].
[486] Chris: oil prices rise. solutions anyone? Thank you Bmellor, for bringing up
the topic of rising oil prices along with a possible solution in [485]. I had never heard the
fixed cost approach to that degree, so it brought up interesting questions, concerns, and
feedback. In some cities (New York City, Los Angeles, etc.) cost of living is much higher.
By instigating a fixed cost to gas prices across all of the country, I think that it may be unfair
to those individuals living in cities (Salt Lake City for example) to pay the same prices. At
the same time, the expensive cost of living cities would probably benefit more since they
would probably have their costs cut down since a fixed cost would land somewhere between
the lower end and higher end of the oil price scale. I also do not see oil as elastic as you are
viewing it. A 1% cut back is not much in my opinion. Sadly, I would think that people would
have to undergo radical life events to cut their consumption of gas and make a difference in
lowering gas costs. I also think that if some fixed cost were to be set in place, we would need
to adjust it to inflation levels. The price of gas in the 1980’s was no where near the same
nominal cost. Therefore, if we had a fixed cost on gas that was not adjusted for inflation, we
would see gas prices drop due to this lack of adjustment. As a result, consumption would
increase.
While I do not completely think fixing gas prices would result in cheaper gas and a
consumption decrease, I thank Bmellor for bringing up the topic. I do not have the answer

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 459
either, but healthy discussion leads to innovation and leading to answers. There is a problem
with price gouging and I, like everyone else, am getting sick of it.
Next Message by Chris is [533].
[487] Papageorgio: Gassious. Bmellor [485] is an interesting post, first of all I wonder
if he has been on one of those meetings with OPEC, because who knows what they decide
it those meetings it could very well be greed and wealth. [485] mentions a fixed gas price
forever. This does not make much sense to me having a fixed price on gas or anything else
and when the price drops we pay a tax to pay the diff.? thats odd, or does the producer pay
the tax? as taxes are often split between producer and consumer? What if the price rises
above the fixed price, do we then continue paying the lower price, I doubt producers would
agree to that. Prices with things change over time, a bottle of soda used to be 79 cents now
1.19, would leaving the price at a fixed cost help the producer? I do agree with [485] that
the pain of the cost makes us use diff. methods. Alot of things have no great substitute in
the short run, but many have a subsitute in the long run like gas. For example switching
to carpools, walking, hybrid cars, etc as Bmellor said. I also agree with [485] that it is not
so much environmental worry that is changing peoples habits as it is the ridiculousness of
filling up an suv with 50 plus dollars of gas every week. maybe a good quality in a president
would be someone who would look into gas prices not someone who will jack them up.
Next Message by Papageorgio is [494].
[596] Hans: Environmentalists joining with Peace and Social Justice Movements.
Marx is relevant for today because his theory helps us understand that the capitalist system
has some very strong in-built tendencies which do not depend on the will of the individuals
living in today’s society. From this follows that strong counter-interventions are needed to
get the system off its suicidal path towards climate catastrophe. Such interventions can only
come from mass grassroots organizing.
The Utah Moms for Clean Air are the best local example for mass organizing in the face
of climate change. Their target is not climate change per se, because it is difficult to motivate
around long term goals against a danger which at present manifests itself only in subtle ways.
Their target is a related problem, air pollution, and recent scientific findings that air pollution
is much more harmful than previously assumed, especially for little children. They organize
the mothers. The mother of a child which is endangered turns into a lion. They have had
spectacular success with this approach.
The Moms for Clean Air are very careful to be a single purpose group, gathering together
everybody concerned about clean air. They do not want to be perceived as Democrats of
Liberals etc., they want everybody concerned about clean air to join them. This single-issue
approach is very successful, they regularly talk to the governor, have good press coverage,
etc.
Another coalition of political and social justice groups in this valley is trying the opposite
approach. They say that the looming climate catastrophe is intertwined with many other
issues, and that the most effective approach is to address all these issues all at once. Tomorrow,
Saturday April 5, 12-2:30 pm, they have organized a march and rally beginning and
ending at the City Government Building (451 South State) which addresses several tightly
interwoven issues:

460 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
(a) the right to be healthy independent of economic status is addressed by a call for a
single payer health system. Global Warming means the spread of more contagious diseases,
and it is in the interest of all of us that everybody has access to decent health care.
(b) tomorrow’s rally calls for withrawal of the US out of Iraq. Instead of adversarial
control of fossil fuels we need a peaceful world wide transition to clean energy.
(c) tomorrow’s rally calls for environmental justice. The costs of a switch to clean energy
must not be shifted on those who can least afford it.
(d) By advertising the goal of 350 parts per million CO2 this rally calls for much more
urgent and effective carbon reduction policies than are presently even being contemplated.
This is a new approach. The environmental organizations are reluctant to take on the
hot issues of health care or the occupation of Iraq. Like the Utah Moms, they want to
stay focused on a single issue. I think this strategy misses out on important opportunities,
and they would do better to combine with the other movements. If today’s social justice
movements, anti-war movements, labor movement, and environmental movements combine,
they can be extremely influential. As I see it, the environmental movement will be the big
engine for this coalition. Not a week passes without more disaster news from the global
warming front. It is a certainty that the environmental movement is only in its infancy; more
and more people realize what is going on and it will be huge. This will also give other issues
the punch which they need to break through and make some differences. Tomorrow’s rally
is a test of this hypothesis, and an attempt to push such a coalition forward. If it is a success,
this will be big News not only in Utah but for the whole nation. If you show up tomorrow,
preferably with your bicycle, this will help this coalition effort, it will be educational, and it
will be fun.
Here is a detailed announcement / press release:
APRIL 5 HEALTHY PLANET MARCH
CAN 350 CYCLISTS ALL BE WRONG?
Healthy Planet March and Rally Spurs Cyclists to Action
Cyclists in Salt Lake City will lead the pack this Saturday, April 5th, at a march and rally
to promote a healthy planet beginning and ending at the City Government Building, 451
South State Street. Riders will take to the streets at noon to call for peace, health care and
healthy air.
Rocky Anderson, former Salt Lake mayor, is just one speaker slated to raise public awareness
and support. The April 5th Healthy Planet Rally aims to spotlight three causes: ending
the occupation in Iraq, providing universal single payer health care for all citizens and reducing
carbon emissions to halt global warming.
Carbon emissions are exactly where the 350 cyclists come in. They will represent the
350 parts per million of CO2 needed to create a sustainable atmosphere. We are currently
at 383 parts per million. Cyclists, walkers and one electric car will drive the message home:
to protect our planet, we need to reduce CO2 emissions now. If you would like to join the

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 461
parade with your bicycle, please come to the West Steps of the City Government Building
(known as the “City County Building”) a little before noon on Saturday April 5.
Saturday’s march will also launch Bill McKibben’s global 350 Campaign. Environmentalist
and author McKibben, who spoke in Salt Lake City last month, encouraged local activists
to round up 350 cyclists to kick off the April 5th rally. Salt Lake will be the first U.S.
city to host a 350 event with our own CO2 cyclists.
The one o’clock rally, led by moderators Troy Williams of KRCL and Diana Lee Hirschi
of the Salt Lake Quakers, features live music by Rich Wyman and Orion, speeches by Green
Party activist Peter Miguel Camejo and Iraq War veteran Chris Conway. Poets Shae, Repo
and Flora will join Rocky Anderson, along with Barbara Toomer from Disabled Rights Action
Committee and Brian Moench from Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment.
Additionally, soldiers’ combat boots representing each Utah military casualty in Iraq will
be on display in the Eyes Wide Open: The Cost of War exhibit. Dr. Martin Luther King
was assassinated forty years ago, on April 4th, trying to end the war in Viet Nam and secure
peace, justice and equality. The Healthy Planet Rally honors his memory by marching on
April 5th to secure a healthy planet with healthy lives for all.
Cyclists, activists, families–add your voice to the call for peace, health care and healthy
air. Come join Rocky and the gang at the Healthy Planet Rally, April 5 from noon till 2:30
at 451 South State Street. For more information, go to http://agenda08.org
Hans.
Next Message by Hans is [604].
[608] Trailrunner: Sustainability - Some Easy Changes. This past week, I spent two
days at a workshop put on by the Office of Sustainability at the University called “Fostering
Sustainable Behavior.” While this workshop was geared for people that are working to create
changes in sustainable behavior as a part of their job, there are a few things that we can do
in our individual lives that are easy to do and yet make a contribution to a more sustainable
life.
Some of the things that can be done within your own home are as follows:
Lower the temperature on your hot water heater
Make sure your hot water heater is wrapped with an insulation blanket made for this
purpose
Use low-flow shower heads
Take 4 minute showers
Get a composter and use it
Raise the height of your lawn mower - keeping the grass longer helps retain moisture,
meaning less watering
When it comes to your car:
If you are sitting in your car waiting for someone don’t leave the car running for more
than 10 seconds

462 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
Make sure your tires are properly inflated - this provides safety, better fuel efficiency and
reduced emissions
In a certain area of Canada where public transportation is highly promoted, they have a
special voucher program. If someone is hesitant to use public transportation because maybe
they have a child in school across town from where they work and they are afraid that if an
emergency arose, they would not be able to get to their child quickly enough, these vouchers
can be used to obtain a free taxi ride for this emergency. These vouchers are monitored so
there is no mis-use, but it is a creative way to help promote public transporation. I’m sure
there are many other creative programs out there as well.
There are always little things that we can do to help keep the earth a bit more healthy and
many of them require just a small change in thinking or in habit. Taking that first step can
lead to many more and every little bit helps.
First Message by Trailrunner is [60].
[766] Dentist: human footprint. so i just watched a television program on the national
geographic channel called “Human Footprint,” i would really like to hear some opinions of
and reactions to this program, so i hope that i am not the only one who saw it.
for those who did not see it, I’ll summarize and perhaps you may still feel inclined to
share what you know/feel. The show was simply a look at what a single American consumes
over a lifetime. It hinted at how much energy is wasted and how gluttonous we are in our
consumption. in doing so it revealed the immense quantities of energy that is uselessly
wasted. one example i found somewhat humorous (although quite sad) was that a single pair
of shoes will travel farther just to get to your closet, than you could ever walk in them!
Recently i have been contemplating if we as humans are really making as large of an impact
on the world as we are made out to be. Honestly, i was having a bit of trouble accepting
this idea and was inclined to believe that we thought to much of ourselves. however, seeing
this program put into perspective a few things, and i now i truly believe that we our footprints
are becoming so deep that soon enough they could become our graves. that being said, i still
am quite skeptical that we are going to purge life from earth and leave it a desolate mass
floating in space. while we our more than capable of destroying ourselves, i believe that
earth will be quite abel to continue on without us.
at any rate, i am now rejuvenated in my personal efforts to run lifestyle in more productive
and efficient way. and part of this motivation has come from this program, so i would
encourage everyone to watch it and think about some of the ways that they can personally
make an impact.
“By just recycling the cans from all the soda that you will drink in your lifetime, you
could save enough energy to power a t.v. for over 130,000 hours.” (at least they put it in
terms the common American can relate too, right? soda and t.v.!! hahaha)
Next Message by Dentist is [862].
[877] CousinIt: Struggle for existence. It is arguable that without capitalism many of the
advancements in our quality of life would not have been made possible. It is through science
and technology (often in the service of the war machine and certainly in the service of increased
productivity, power, and profits) that many of the things that we take for granted that

U of Utah Econ 5080 2008SP 463
have made our lives more comfortable, fulfilling, and easier were created. Capitalism has
been an engine of creativity and ingenuity, by this account. It could be said that capitalism
was a neccessary step forward in human evolution.
The original impetus for the development of technology, according to Herbert Marcuse
(in his book “One-Dimensional Man”), is the “pacification of the struggle for existence”
or we could say “to make life as human beings survivable and prosperous” or “to protect
human survival from the threats to it from the ravages of nature.” As a species, clearly, we
have been able to achieve this goal for a portion of the total human population to a significant
degree, surely far surpassing what the first technologists (who invented clothing, shelter, and
the use of fire) would have thought humanly possible. According to Marcuse, the problem
is that we have not extended this ability to pacify the struggle for existence to the masses but
have instead unwittingly strayed from this path onto the ‘yellow brick road’ to extinction.
Clearly, capitalism as a productive economic social system has gone way beyond the mere
pacification of the struggle for existence. Capitalism, though it has been a major contributing
factor in the development of technology, has gone beyond its usefulness to the species in
this regard, even to the point of creating technologies and environmental effects that actually
threaten to destroy life.
This threat to the environment and life is an interesting development that Marx was not
so concerned with and perhaps wasn’t able to foresee in as dire manifestation as is now
upon us. Marx, as well as Marcuse, are both more interested in freeing people from the
struggle for existence so that they can enjoy more fulfilling and creative everyday lives, a
condition which they believe would facilitate the development of technologies and other
cultural artifacts and behaviors in a direction more enhancing of the human condition than
those being produced at the demand of the profit motive. In other words, the world that
they envision is a world more conducive to the development of the human spirit and its
potential in all areas of human life and activity, in a way that actually enhances and nourishes
human beings as individuals, thus making a better society all the way around...a creative
intelligent society of self-ruling individuals whose collective aim is to mutaully aid one
another in the fulfillment of individual and collective potential and well-being for all, not
just the privileged few (though it is questionable that capitalism has done even that much for
the wealthy capitalists, every bit as much capitalism’s victims as are the working poor).
Since we do not collectively recognize that capitalism as a mode of social economic
production has failed in the pacification of the struggle for existence and in effect “gone
too far in the wrong direction”, and has in fact exacerbated the struggle, what is happening
is that nature is stepping in and forcing us to make the changes necessary, lest we, as a
species, perish. Marx knew that capitalism would have to reach its limits before it would
become imperative that it be dismantled and replaced with socialism as the remedial form
of an ultimate development of human society as a collective communal social system that
seeks the betterment of all humans, a betterment that includes, like it or not, reduction or
elimination of the negative impact that human beings have on the environment as a requisite
for continued health, prosperity, and indeed, for survival.
Despite what the popular discourse has brainwashed many of us into thinking, we have
not tried socialism or communism...these did not fail because they weren’t ever tried as

464 2008SP Econ 5080 U of Utah
world systems, which they must be in order to succeed. “Socialism” and “Communism” as
we know them, are actually forms of ‘state-capitalism’ that could not but fail. We have apparently
not reached the requisite subtlety of consciousness or intellect necessary to produce
the awareness to be able to do real socialism. However we are being pushed to just some
such kind of shift in consciousness by the necessities of species survival.
Capitalism is a cruel, unfair, exploitive, degenerate, socio-economic system that has outlived
its usefulness and has become environmentally, physically, emotionally, and spiritually
unsustainable. It worked for a while to get us to a point where we could somewhat
effectively protect our species from the elements of nature that threatened our survival and
prosperity and to develop a particular kind of consciousness that has facilitated the development
of technology and wealth but that has ultimately become a pandemic socio-ideologic
pathology. The human species and the environment are seriously chronically ill because of
capitalism. The Earth, as a living body, is doing what any living body does to pathogens
that do not harmonize with the overall health of the living organism. It is releasing antigens
to destroy the threat to the organism’s survival. Human beings, under capital, are the cancer,
the virus, that must be harmonized with the larger living organism or, alternatively, that
which must be destroyed. The sad thing is that we may have already missed the window of
opportunity to return to some kind of sustainable harmony with the larger organism and are
already marked for extinction.
As an optimist, I believe that the only chance we have of improving our chances of survival
is the immediate dismantling of the capitalist system and its replacement with a humane,
environmentally responsible socialism whose aim is the community of all humans
and all other life on the planet, i.e. a true communalism.... a true communism as the dominant
characteristic attitude of the human species in realization of its full existential potential.
Now is the time to become a full citizen of the world and to join other responsible citizens
in collectively remaking our world into a world that is a good place to exist for everyone.
Now, how could this as a goal, by any stretch of the imagination, be a bad thing to do?
(Unless of course the imagination that we possess has become so ill that it cannot see such
good possibilities as anything other than evil....i.e., a pathologically psychotic imagination
that can no longer grasp the reality of its condition.)
Have a wonderful life and good luck always, comrades all... I hope we live through this...
Message [877] referenced by [879]. First Message by CousinIt is [13].
[879] Mitternacht: RE: Struggle for Existence. I just wanted to add one last comment
regarding the last posting [877] and the class in general.
Thank you CousinIt for your positive and optimistic take - it’s hard to not be pessimistic
given the current state of affairs. I’m holding out hope that people can and will work together
to make the world a better place; if not out of concern for one another as human beings, then
out of the need for self preservation.
Thanks to all of you for your contributions and insight - it definitely made this class more
enjoyable. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors.
First Message by Mitternacht is [73].
Compiled by Hans G. Ehrbar 2013-07-07 04:13:46.