Say’s Value vs Smith’s Value

Say’s proposition was accepted by most classical authors but his theory was derived from a very different theory of value.
Smith, whom we call the father of modern economics, told us through his work that every product has two values the “use value” and “exchange value”. Smith explained that use-value has nothing to do with the price of the product. But the exchange value decides the price. At what value do people want to exchange a product for something which is its price? The exchange value according to Smith is determined by “the difficulty in the production” of that product. While use-value does not raise the price of that thing. He explained it by citing a diamond-water paradox. What makes a diamond costly is that it is a very difficult task to make diamond, a diamond. On the other hand why water is so cheap because the process of making it is not very difficult. It’s just available in surplus despite being needed and demanded by each living being.
Let’s move toward what says had to say about this “value” thing. Says argued that value is a subjective thing, “you call only useful that which is so to the eye of reason, but you ought to understand by that word whatever is capable of satisfying the wants and desires of man such as he is… He is the sole judge of the important things that are off to him,… We cannot judge of it but by the price he puts on them.” [OREF 105]
An example of that is an old sword image person’s house has no value for me and you but it may have great value for that person because of his family’s history and attachment to that old sword. Now everyone will price that old sword differently. This is what says tried to explain while giving his theory of value.
Hence Say’s theory of value is based on utility vs smith’s theory of value is based on the cost of production.
Hope the above analysis helped you get an idea about this subject. I would love to what your mind holds about this.

Happy reading.