Talk:Marginal use

gobbledook

"The usefulness of the marginal use thus corresponds to the marginal utility of the good or service."

When broken down, this is a statement of the obvious, analogous to saying "the greenness of the green apple corresponds to the green appleness of the apple." 61.88.37.85 (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No; it's not. In a sense, it should be obvious, but mainstream economics is unhinged, and has defined “utility” in a way that obscures the fact that it means usefulness. There was, in fact, an explicit objection on the talk page for “Marginal utility” by a typical economist to a claim by a good economist that if utility were quantified then it would be a measure of use. (“'Use'”, said the typical economist, “is a fundamental element in the Austrian way of defining MU, but it simply never enters into the neoclassical definition (as far as I know). The neoclassical version just starts out by ranking bundles.”)

A simple tautology whose truth is not evident to a signficant share of the audience is plainly not gobbledook. —SlamDiego_←T 09:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)