Marginal Utility Theory

[Eleutheromaniac]

Why do neo-liberals and those on the right cling to MUT as such a big example as to why they believe capitalism is the optimal expression of human subjectivity? I believe it to be contradictory, because the inevitability of commodity fetishism makes capitalism highly objective, objective in the sense that 'stuff' > people. :confused: Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology, or perhaps I'm wrong on my definitions (I'm no economist by any means). I just found it peculiar that the right is so obsessed with defending this concept.

[Blake's Baby]

It almost makes sense as a critique of Marx, that's why. If you ignore the fact that Marx looks at an abstract 'perfect' form of capitalism (rather than the real thing, which is even more irrational and chaotic than the model). And the fact that Marx specifically mentions that commodities must have a 'use' (ie an end market).

If profit is derived from differential 'wants', rather than labour, then the worker is merely taking his share 'now' while the capitalist is heroically foregoing instant gratification in the hope he can make a future profit. Bless his cotton socks (that the poor lamb hasn't even got yet because those nasty greedy workers haven't made them).

[Ledur]

Utility value is just another scarcity measure, but this one can be totally insane (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/weirdest-ebay-purchases_n_1924271.html).

[Loony Le Fist]

A more modern form of utility is Prospect Theory. It helps to clarify how human beings make economic decisions. It's usually tied with Behavioral Economics. It quantifies how utility curves are not symmetric; humans are more risk-averse. This contradicts the predictions of neoliberal economics. But all utility theories demonstrate is just how much fetishism drives consumerism. Value is subjective, but how good is it to allow it to be for everything? Aren't some basic things just necessary and therefore value transcends the subjectivity?

[Blake's Baby]

No, because to the people who promote these ideas, there are no differences between 'needs' and 'wants'. A 'need' is just what you call a 'want' that you claim the lack of will damage you (like, food or warmth or shelter). But those are subjective. Some people, it seems, can be damaged by the lack of Ferrarris, fellatio and cocaine - and it's evil socialists that will stop them having it.

I paraphrase somewhat.

[cyu]

Aren't some basic things just necessary and therefore value transcends the subjectivity?


Yes, products and services that the poor want are inherently more necesssary than products and services that the rich want - in so much that after you pay for the necessities, what else is there to spend your money on besides buying politicians, newspapers, and funding grants for academic economists?