ruoyan 发表于 2010-7-21 15:33
先解释什么是前提。

吴本龙 发表于 2010-7-21 18:28

ruoyan 发表于 2010-7-21 15:33
先解释什么是前提。

   我不想解释这种稀里古怪的问题。你以前还欠我的债呐。什么时候还我？

ruoyan 发表于 2010-7-21 21:54

吴本龙 发表于 2010-7-21 18:28

ruoyan 发表于 2010-7-21 15:33
先解释什么是前提。

   我不想解释这种稀里古怪的问题。你以前还欠我的债呐。什么时候还我？

那段国富论的英文是我欠你的?

ruoyan 发表于 2010-7-26 12:56
斯密的原话是：
The word value, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses
the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods
which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called "value in use"; the other,
"value in exchange." The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or
no value in exchange; and, on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange
have frequently little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful than water: but it will
purchase scarce anything; scarce anything can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the
contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently
be had in exchange for it.
你给讲解一下，斯密这里怎么给UTILITY下定义了？
本文来自: 人大经济论坛 马克思主义经济学 版，详细出处参考：http://www.pinggu.org/bbs/viewth ... page=7&from^^uid=3967

问题的焦点在于你对斯密的话理解不正确。你回答一下上述问题：“斯密这里（英文）怎么给UTILITY下定义了？”有你理解的那个意思吗？这样就知道为什么不回答你其它问题了——没必要。

吴本龙 发表于 2010-7-26 17:42
明显的无赖。有汉语的《国富论》你不用，偏偏要摘录英文的《国富论》。你的意思是郭大力与王亚南翻译《国 ...