This is a linkpost for http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/costs-are-not-benefits/
For the purposes of this discussion, I would define "value" as "long-run average market price." Note that, in this sense, "use-value" has nothing whatsoever to do with value, unless you believe in the subjective theory of value. That's why I say it is unfortunate terminology, and "use-value" should less confusingly be called "subjective practical advantage."
Which economists confuse the two? The false equivocation of use-value with exchange-value is one of the core assumptions of marginalism, and pretty much everyone these days is a marginalist of some sort, so it would be easier to name economists that didn't confuse the two: Steve Keen and Anwar Shaikh are the first two that come to mind. Any Marxist economist will have a good grip on the distinction, so that would include people like Andrew Kliman and Michael Roberts as well.
I would define "value" as "long-run average market price."
Sure. But note that the great majority of people do NOT define "value" like this, so there will be communications problems :-/
So there is "value" which you are saying is basically cost of production (right?) and there is the SPA ("subjective practical advantage") which is just how you feel about things. If I understand you correctly you are also saying there is no link between the two (because demand does not affect the "value"), yes?
Thi...