: Perhaps you could enlarge upon the idea of enhancementI thought you marxists were into subjectively 'self defined needs'? Regardless I say that above with confidence that it communicates the concept to people (except you ofcourse - but are you my audience?) that one thing can enhance a persons life more than another thing. Utilitarians and economists have never had more than an imaginary measure ('utils') to describe the increased satisfaction,happines, contentment, feeling of accomplishment, esteem and hundreds of other qualitative concepts.
It would worry me that you might have the gall to suggest a rigid measurement of other peoples lives, no doubt enforced by those who serve the party - or alternately suggest that there are no differences at all in this matter.
: and interesting roles
Likewise - what people find interesting in their lives. I can well imagine that toilet paper holds a deep fascination in some peoples lives but have no problem saying that generally cars are considered more so.
: as they apply to the use-value
The use value being subject to user (and not you, the party and its calculus) the connection above is obvious. More = more.
: How do capitalists measure enhancement and intersting roles when pricing products? Etc., etc.
They estimate on the back of research into how much people like the product and would want to buy it and at what price.
: And when you're finished, perhaps you could then explain to me how 'people's desires are subjective,'
If you had read that in context you would not attempt to get one over on me here. Lots of people can claim to desire food regardless of whether or not they need it by simply saying they want it.
: and then square that with your statement 'desire is objective'
You could extablish those among the group who were in physiological need of food and call that the objective base.
You could even go further and state that the expression of desire is all objective by simply referring to the entire process of feeling and acting upon any desire as being 'the objective facts of reality' regardless, in the above scenario, whether the desire is related to physiological evidence of need.
Discussing such with you is pointless though - as your purpose in debating with anyoine who isnt lap-dog subservient to your self appointed position of 'authority' appears to simply be a mission to attempt to find ways in which to attack / ridicule or otherwise belittle the other debater. Its not anywhere near as successful as you, comfortably at your keyboard there, imagine it to be.
: generated from everest.
Please continue to demonstrate you obtuse inability to grasp
"Go find the Fed Research, they're up just above Everest, where the air is thin."
Which to anyone else means ' its the Federal Governments own research - if you consider that to be a 'thin air' conjuration of my own then go look for it yourself, where you seem to think it comes from. '
Finally - you said somewhere that you were to 'give up' on me. I wasnt aware you had invested something you now had to give up - but feel free to do so properly, or is that another statement similar to 'im outta here' as promised following your whine that the damn philistines were not admiring your lovely long posts enough.
