Thursday, February 28, 2019

Blue Star Pendant--Intermediate tutorial

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

In studies of Adam Smith labor was obliged
privileged and recognized in it the ability
to set a constant ratio between the values of things; he
allowed to equate the exchange of such use value,
commensurability which is subject to change or subject to
of relativity. However, the work could acquire such a role only at the cost
specific conditions: it was necessary to assume that
the amount of labor required for the production of some items, as well
the amount of labor which the thing itself could buy
the process of exchange. How else was it possible to prove this identity,
if not on the basis of the assimilation (rather vaguely alleged,
rather than fully explained) labor as a production
of activity and labor as a commodity to be bought and
to sell? Work in this second sense cannot be used in
as a permanent measure; it is "equally susceptible to change
how all those goods or products with which it can
compare"1<$F1 Ricardo. Euvres completes, Paris, 1882, p. 5.>.
The reason for this mixing of the two concepts of "labor" Adam Smith was
the dominant importance attached to performance in
his concept: every product was represented by a specific
labor, and all labor could represent a certain number of
product. The activities of people and the cost of things came into communication
transparent elements of the submission. It is here that the study
Ricardo finds his place and the crucial support of its
significance. This is not the first study in which such an important
place in the functioning of the economy is allocated to labor; but it
breaks the unity of the concept of "work" and delineates for the first time so
radically the force, the work, the working time, which
bought and sold, and the activity that underlies the
the cost of things. Thus, on one side is labor,
offered by workers, who accept or require
entrepreneurs and payable wages