Norveçce - Türkçe çeviri (v1.4 yeni)
?Norveçce
Smith ([0000] 0000, 00–00) identified “real value” as the
quantity of labor that was required to afford the “necessities,
conveniences, and amusements of human life” through the
labor of others. But Smith’s focus was not on allexchange,
just on the exchange of commodities that could contribute to
national wealth. So having established that the exchange of
labor, or services, was the fundamental source of real value,
he partially abandoned this discussion and shifted his attention to “nominal value”—the price paid in the marketplace.
Smith felt that people could more easily think in terms of
quantities of things rather than quantities of labor, and his
concern was with the former. This refocusing eased Smith’s
normative task of explaining how trade contributed to
national wealth. However, he now faced the paradox of two
standards of value, one based on consumption—value in
use—and the other based on trade—value in exchange. And
as noted by many of the economic scholars who followed
him, it also limited the generalizability of the economic philosophy and economic science that developed from his work
Türkçe
Smith ([0000] 0000, 00–00) identified “real value” as the
quantity of labor that was required to afford the “necessities,
conveniences, and amusements of human life” through the
labor of others. But Smith’s focus was not on allexchange,
just on the exchange of commodities that could contribute to
national wealth. So having established that the exchange of
labor, or services, was the fundamental source of real value,
he partially abandoned this discussion and shifted his attention to “nominal value”—the price paid in the marketplace.
Smith felt that people could more easily think in terms of
quantities of things rather than quantities of labor, and his
concern was with the former. This refocusing eased Smith’s
ticaretin
ulusal servete nasıl katkıda bulunduğunu açıklayan normatif görev . Bununla birlikte, şimdi iki
değer standardının paradoksuyla karşı karşıyaydı , biri tüketime dayalı -
kullanım değeri - ve diğeri ticaret - değişim değeri. Ve onu
takip eden pek çok ekonomi bilim adamının da belirttiği gibi
, onun çalışmalarından gelişen ekonomi felsefesi ve ekonomi biliminin genelleştirilebilirliğini de sınırlandırdı.