[214] See _Grundsätze der Volkswirthschaftslehre_, Wien, 1871, p. 78. “Der Werth ist die Bedeutung, welche concrete Güter oder Güterquantitäten für uns dadurch erlangen, dass wir in der Befriedigung unserer Bedürfnisse von der Verfügung über dieselben abhängig zu sein uns bewusst sind.” Menger gives this as a definition of value simply, but it is of course a definition of that particular kind of value which we have agreed to call “esteem value.” [215] Of course this power in the good exists only in relation to some human being. It is perfectly true that the good would have no such power if there were no man to use it, and that its power may change as the condition of the man using it is changed, and that its power over one man is different from its power over another. For these reasons, utility has often been declared to be subjective, as if it resided in the mind of the man. Whether it is subjective or objective depends precisely upon what one means by these terms. Practically we may say that our habitual thought correctly refers the utility to the good and conceives it as an attribute belonging to the good in virtue of its common physical properties. The utility of the good does not exist in the mind except in the sense in which all things exist in the mind. We should at least say that utility has objective reference. The satisfaction belongs to the mind, the utility to the good. The utility is a sort of objective counterpart or projection of the satisfaction. [216] “Gossen’s law.” [217] That is, it applies only where goods are held in stocks by individual consumers. Thus the “esteem” value of a piano commonly has nothing to do with “marginal” utility. Only if consumers were to own pianos in stocks—to use several at once—would there be grounds for speaking of the marginal utility of a piano. For further consideration of this point see the next section. [218] Professor v. Wieser explains that the reason why we attribute a superior importance to a good that has marginal utility as compared with a good that is superabundant, is because we have a “natural indifference” toward goods in general, which can only be overcome when the good is so scarce that its absence would decrease our satisfactions. _Natural Value_, p. 29. This would seem to be explaining the thing by itself. The ultimate origin of this “natural indifference” is what calls for explanation. [219] _Positive Theory of Capital_, book iv, especially chap. iv. [220] As Professor Macvane exclaims, the Austrians seem to reason as if the good fairies determined what the supply of commodities shall be. See _The Quarterly Journal of Economics_, vol. v, p. 24. Concerning Professor Macvane’s general attacks on the Austrian position, it is only fair to say, however, that he appears in the main issues entirely to miss the point of the utility theory. See also the same journal, vol. vii, p. 255, and the _Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science_, vol. iv, p. 348.