FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220  
221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   >>   >|  
ype. In neither workmanship nor acquisition can one fix upon routine as the "normal" type, hoping to derive or to explain away the inevitable residue of "outstanding cases." For as a matter of fact the outstanding cases prove to be our only clue to a knowledge of how routine is made.[50] The above formula will apply, with the appropriate changes of emphasis, to buyers and sellers in an organized market, as well as to the parties to a simple transaction of barter. Two main empirical characteristics of the economic situation are suggested in putting the statement in just these terms. In the first place, the primary problem in such a situation is that of "exchange valuation," the fixation of a "subjective" (or better, a "personal") price ratio between what the agent wishes to acquire and whatever it is that he offers in exchange. The agent thus is engaged in determining what shall be the relative importance for himself of _two_ commodities or exchangeable goods. And in the second place these goods get their values determined together and in relation to each other, never singly and with a view to _subsequent_ comparison. These values when they have been determined will be measured in terms of marginal utility in accordance with familiar principles, but the marginal utilities that are to express the attained and accepted ratio at which exchange eventually takes place are not known quantities at all in the inception of the process of comparison. If these dogmatic statements seem to issue in hopeless paradox or worse, then let us not fear to face the paradox and fix its lines with all possible distinctness. Can a man decide to offer so much of one commodity for so much of another unless he _first_ has settled what each is worth to him in some intelligible terms or other? And is not this latter in point of fact the real decision--at all events clearly more than half the battle? Does not the exchange ratio to which one can agree "leap to the eyes," in fact, as soon as the absolute values in the case have been once isolated and given numerical expression? In a single word we here join issue. For the comparison in such a case is _constructive comparison_, not a mechanical measuring of fixed magnitudes, as the above objection tacitly assumes. And constructive comparison is essentially a transitive or inductive operation whereby the agent moves from one level to another, altering his standard of living in some more or less import
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220  
221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
comparison
 

exchange

 

values

 

constructive

 

situation

 

paradox

 

marginal

 

determined

 

outstanding

 
routine

commodity

 

acquisition

 

quantities

 

inception

 

normal

 

settled

 

intelligible

 
process
 
statements
 
hopeless

dogmatic

 

decide

 

decision

 

distinctness

 

workmanship

 

assumes

 

essentially

 

transitive

 
inductive
 

tacitly


objection
 
mechanical
 

measuring

 
magnitudes
 
operation
 
standard
 

living

 

import

 
altering
 
battle

absolute
 

single

 

expression

 
numerical
 
isolated
 

events

 

derive

 

valuation

 

fixation

 

subjective