We see this compromise between use value and exchange value in almost any transaction we make. Most often, exchange value and use value are not aligned. While use-value suggests a more Marxist concept of the value of a good (or place) to a society in how it is experienced and utilized for a particular and unique purpose, exchange value suggests a capitalistic concept of how much one is willing to pay to obtain a good (or place) and is just based on competitive market value. Just by example, while your own old worn out sneakers might be worth little exchange value (who wants to pay for those?!), Pele’s old worn out soccer cleats have little use value to the buyer, but a high exchange value as they are in low supply and high demand – they could fetch a good price! Maybe this example doesn’t best relate to land, but it illustrates that values are most often attributed to what will fetch the highest price, rather than what has more personal value.
I see the exchange value over use value fight illustrated better in the case of a local business in my town, formerly known as Tony’s pizzeria, but today occupied by Subway. Thanks to a tax system based on property values, a business can only survive if it can pay the price dictated by the market, not by its use value to the community.
Tony’s pizzeria was a well established, popular, and often crowded local business that used to inhabit the main street in my town. It had a central desirable location and was generally seen as the preferred pizza place in town, one that was well trusted, well liked, and a long-standing favorite. The community was attached not only to the pizza, but the owners, the character, and the name. This place had a high use value for its community ties and customer loyalty.
However, with time, taxes went up and inflation made it more expensive to produce pizza. Operating the business became more costly. While Tony’s never lost its great use value, the exchange value couldn’t keep up with rising costs. A more stable and profitable business like Subway (part of a larger international corporation) with no attachment to the local community would do better in terms of exchange value. While Tony’s had to shut down because it couldn’t keep up with the rising prices of operating, Subway could sweep in and become quickly successful (even without that sentimental community loyalty from the relationship or longstanding presence of a local business.) This example shows, unfortunately, how exchange values can trump use value and force a well-loved local spot out of business. I, like many other residents of my town, was sad to see Tony’s go. But the exchange-based market is merciless.
