Qualitative analysis of cases 1 and 2 Just as we have done a numeric analysis of cases 1 and 2, to understand the value → connection, here we will do the same, but in their qualitative aspect. To do this we price present table 5: Table 5 Qualitative analysis of the relation price → Which theory Case Explains it Um Prices Utilities q Stocks Umq Um$ $ .Pq$ P$q Umq∩Um$ O∩D αTIq αIq αFq .q Case = = = YES NO ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ 1 Case = = = = YES NO ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ 2 In table 5 we have a reflection of the behavior of each case relative to the position of origin of the the quantities of stocks available for exchange, and the prices Um, corresponding to each economic good. The behavior of each variable is symbolized with: = (constant), (increase) y (decrease). In the last column we summarize which theory ↑ ↓ explains the behavior of the variables and which does not. From 5 we derive these conclusions, comparing each case with the position of origin: (q prices (Pq$ in of and and $) versus and P$q) Uq U$: Quantities (q) and prices (Pq$). Ie, versus ∆q ∆Pq$: In both the quantities of remained constant (= while their price (Pq$) q q), decreased. It is evident, as the two last columns show, that the theory based on can explain it, not so the theory based on Umq O∩D. ∩Um$, Quantities ($) and prices (P$q), i.e., versus ∆$ ∆P$q: In the first case the quantity of decreased (↓$) and its prices increased (↑P$q), in $ the second case the quantity of remained constant (=$), and its price increased $ (↑P$q). It is evident that: while the theory based on explains both Umq∩Um$ cases, with the theory based on we cannot explain either case, though in the O∩D first case the correlation with but it does coincides O∩D not explain. Marginal utilities (Um) prices (P): versus Marginal utilities (Umq) of and prices (Pq$) of i.e., q q, versus ∆Umq ∆Pq$:
Qualitative analysis of cases 1 and 2 Just as we have done a numeric analysis of cases 1 and 2, to understand the value → price connection, here we will do the same, but in their qualitative aspect. To do this we present table 5: Table 5 Qualitative analysis of the relation → price Case Um Stocks Prices Utilities q Which theory Explains it Umq Um$ .q $ .Pq$ P$q αTIq αIq αFq Umq∩Um$ O∩D Case 1 = ↑ = ↓ ↓ ↑ = ↓ ↑ YES NO Case 2 = ↓ = = ↓ ↑ = ↑ ↓ YES NO In table 5 we have a reflection of the behavior of each case relative to the position of origin of the Um, the quantities of stocks available for exchange, and the prices corresponding to each economic good. The behavior of each variable is symbolized with: = (constant), ↑ (increase) y ↓ (decrease). In the last column we summarize which theory explains the behavior of the variables and which does not. From 5 we derive these conclusions, comparing each case with the position of origin: (q and $) versus prices (Pq$ and P$q) in of Uq and U$: Quantities (q) and prices (Pq$). Ie, ∆q versus ∆Pq$: In both the quantities of q remained constant (= q), while their price (Pq$) decreased. It is evident, as the two last columns show, that the theory based on Umq ∩Um$, can explain it, not so the theory based on O∩D. Quantities ($) and prices (P$q), i.e., ∆$ versus ∆P$q: In the first case the quantity of $ decreased (↓$) and its prices increased (↑P$q), in the second case the quantity of $ remained constant (=$), and its price increased (↑P$q). It is evident that: while the theory based on Umq∩Um$ explains both cases, with the theory based on O∩D we cannot explain either case, though in the first case the correlation coincides with O∩D but it does not explain. Marginal utilities (Um) versus prices (P): Marginal utilities (Umq) of q and prices (Pq$) of q, i.e., ∆Umq versus ∆Pq$:
Theory_of_Value_and_Prices(Carlos_%20Bondone).docx