--- Max Sawicky <sawicky at epinet.org> wrote:
>
> At the end of the day, value under consumer choice
> hinges
"Value" is not a concept reified by consumer choice theory, which I think is part of the whole big problem of economics. To paraphrase John Mackie on the doctrine of second effects (I think), while the presence of a theory of value has been the corruption of most Marxist economics, the absence of one has been the downfall of most non-Marxist economics.
> Ironically, brand as value is a more social type of
> consumption
> than, say, $2K stereo systems in custom designed
> music rooms.
> You don't buy something with a swoosh to wear in
> your living
> room; you buy it for purposes of display. Of
> course, the implied
> social interaction is a warped aspect of capitalist
> culture.
It's also something that, notoriously, is incredibly difficult to account for in a neoclassical framework. The idea of social, positional or similar relational kinds of consumption is so orthogonal to the GDP concept that it probably makes as much sense to include brands as exclude them. But there's still a gut feel which tells you that, since it's impossible for everyone to have a positional good, there's something funny about it.
dd
>
> mbs
>
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie