Dating - For Rich people

Cant view our Adver-tisement at all? Make sure to press this to reload'em.

Dating - For Rich people

has not said a word in proof of the 305b987c477f781d17bc82b94010de41 DGPEH existence, or even the conceivableness of an independent use, but has evaded the great difficulty of his theory by using the word Nutzung in a double sense. 305b987c477f781d17bc82b94010de41 I shall try to show how he does so. On p. 61 he himself identifies the Nutzung of a good with its Gebrauch. He knows besides (p. 61 again) that in perishable goods there is no other possible Gebrauch but a Verbrauch. He must, therefore, also know that in perishable goods the Nutzung is CXXGRYHA identical with the Verbrauch. But, on the other hand, he uses the word Nutzung in stating the problem, and then in the concluding sentence—"In 305b987c477f781d17bc82b94010de41 conformity with this we put the hi in the category of transfers of a Nutzung"—he evidently uses the word in a sense that is not identical with 305b987c477f781d17bc82b94010de41 verbrauch, butmeans a durable nutzung. in the course of the phiage quoted he mixes up step by step the Nutzung in the first sense with theNutzung in PRRXRYNQ the 305b987c477f781d17bc82b94010de41 second sense, till he GJTQ arrives at this KSICP concluding sentence, where, from a number of propositions that are only correct if they refer to Nutzung in the first sense, is drawn the conclusion that there is XFXPKGRKG a Nutzung in the second sense. The first proposition runs: "The owner, in certain circumstances, cannot part with this cwt., and is not inclined to exchange it, or sell it,—perhaps because he is obliged to consume (verbrauchen), or YEHIFYBWW wishes to consume it himself at the end of sixmonths. But up till that date he does not need it." [none] In this proposition the kindof 305b987c477f781d17bc82b94010de41 use that is thought of, and, in the nature of things, the only kind that can be thought of, is quite correctly indicated as the Verbrauch of the good. Then UXMLEWGWJ he continues: "He might of course very well allow himself to transfer 305b987c477f781d17bc82b94010de41 the Gebrauch of it to some one else for the next six months, if only at the expiry of that time he could get back his good." Here begins the 305b987c477f781d17bc82b94010de41 ambiguity. What is the meaning of Gebrauch here? Does it mean Verbrauch? 305b987c477f781d17bc82b94010de41 Or does it mean a kind of Nutzung that lasts over a period of six months? Obviously the Gebrauch is conceivable only 305b987c477f781d17bc82b94010de41 as the Verbrauch, but the words "Gebrauch for the next six months" are calculated to suggest a durable Gebrauch, and with this begins the quid pro quo. Now follows the third proposition: "Say then that there is another man who desires the corn, but cannot barter for it or buy it. He BGLS will point out that he could not get any Nutzung ERTWEAO from the corn, as a perishable good, unless through the Verbrauch of the corn itself, say as seed; but that he would be able to replace another cwt. from the harvest obtained by means QIPURYCR of this Nutzung transferred to him. The owner may find this perfectly satisfactory for his economical interests, since the transaction here refers to a fungible good." This proposition contains the crowning confusion. Knies makes the suitor ACQWAG for the hi point out distinctly that a nutzung of perishable JFDR goods cannot be anything else than 305b987c477f781d17bc82b94010de41 identical with their Verbrauch, but in the same breath he uses and 305b987c477f781d17bc82b94010de41 places the words Nutzung and 305b987c477f781d17bc82b94010de41 Verbrauch in such a way that the two conceptions are kept separate from one another, and appear not .