论价值前提——我的经济学观点之二十三

斯密的原话是：
The word value, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses
the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods
which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called "value in use"; the other,
"value in exchange." The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or
no value in exchange; and, on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange
have frequently little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful than water: but it will
purchase scarce anything; scarce anything can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the
contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently
be had in exchange for it.
你给讲解一下，斯密这里怎么给UTILITY下定义了？
本文来自: 人大经济论坛 马克思主义经济学 版，详细出处参考：http://www.pinggu.org/bbs/viewth ... page=7&from^^uid=3967

问题的焦点在于你对斯密的话理解不正确。你回答一下上述问题：“斯密这里（英文）怎么给UTILITY下定义了？”有你理解的那个意思吗？这样就知道为什么不回答你其它问题了——没必要。

ruoyan 发表于 2010-7-26 12:56
斯密的原话是：
The word value, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses
the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods
which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called "value in use"; the other,
"value in exchange." The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or
no value in exchange; and, on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange
have frequently little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful than water: but it will
purchase scarce anything; scarce anything can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the
contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently
be had in exchange for it.
你给讲解一下，斯密这里怎么给UTILITY下定义了？
本文来自: 人大经济论坛 马克思主义经济学 版，详细出处参考：http://www.pinggu.org/bbs/viewth ... page=7&from^^uid=3967

问题的焦点在于你对斯密的话理解不正确。你回答一下上述问题：“斯密这里（英文）怎么给UTILITY下定义了？”有你理解的那个意思吗？这样就知道为什么不回答你其它问题了——没必要。

   明显的无赖。有汉语的《国富论》你不用，偏偏要摘录英文的《国富论》。你的意思是郭大力与王亚南翻译《国富论》没有你准确呗。按照他俩的翻译，效用与用途、使用价值都是一回事，没有随着数量的增加而递减的可能。按照你的翻译，效用就变成了人对物品的需要了，这种需要可以随着物品数量的增加而递减了。其实，你不需要回答我了。我以后躲着你的帖子就是了。

用词不雅啊，恐怕也不当。
斯密这段话，是用效用解释价值的一个涵义，而并没有解释何为效用。你却从中挖掘出效用的定义，还要别人拿出什么先前的对照定义；且不说有没有，如果斯密这段话并没有否认效用的主观性，你所坚持的还有什么意义呢？
答复你与否不重要，重要的是真正弄清概念。否则浪费的不仅是你的时间。

吴本龙 发表于 2010-7-26 17:42
明显的无赖。有汉语的《国富论》你不用，偏偏要摘录英文的《国富论》。你的意思是郭大力与王亚南翻译《国 ...

翻译为效用按现在的效用意义确实有问题，翻译为有用、用途、功能之类就好了。