The cost of a good is what the manufacturer had to shell out to produce the good.
The price of a good is what the manufacturer charges others for it.
The value of a good is what people *would* pay for the good in an open competitive market; this requires counterfactual analysis.
People often conflate cost and price, since the manufacturers price on the good is my cost to acquire it. This is relatively harmless.
"dumping" is where a manufacturer sets his price below both cost and value, in order to drive out competition, and then acquire a monopoly stance--making it possible for him to then raise the price significantly above value.
Free software is therefore not "dumping" for just the same reasons that food pantries, free symphony concerts, and public education are not dumping--they are not founded on an attempt to seize monopoly control and later raise prices above value.
The value of a good is based on a hypothetical open competetive market, and is thus producer-independent. The value of a good is independent of what its cost or price happens to be for any one manufacturer.
There is no need to start a million of new threads on this. This is still comp.lang.lisp, remember?
> The cost of a good is what the manufacturer had to shell out to > produce the good.
> The price of a good is what the manufacturer charges others for it.
> The value of a good is what people *would* pay for the good in an open > competitive market; this requires counterfactual analysis.
This sounds too metaphysical. A better definition would be: The value of a good is what people /do/ pay for it. Because there is no other way to find out. The requirement of the market being ``open and competitive'' seems bogus. A black market is perfectly fine, too, if you want to find out what people are willing to pay for something.
> "dumping" is where a manufacturer sets his price below both cost and > value, in order to drive out competition, and then acquire a monopoly > stance--making it possible for him to then raise the price > significantly above value.
No. The value would simply change with the price. It doesn't make sense to distiguish much, here. If there is /one/ exchange, of /one/ share of General Motors, the value of General Motors shares changes to the price at which that exchange was made. That simple.
> Free software is therefore not "dumping" for just the same reasons > that food pantries, free symphony concerts, and public education are > not dumping--they are not founded on an attempt to seize monopoly > control and later raise prices above value.
People /do/ pay for food pantries and free symphony concerts etc.: By their taxes.
> The value of a good is based on a hypothetical open competetive > market, and is thus producer-independent. The value of a good is > independent of what its cost or price happens to be for any one > manufacturer.
No, it's not.
Regards, -- Nils Goesche Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
Nils Goesche <n...@cartan.de> writes: > > The value of a good is what people *would* pay for the good in an open > > competitive market; this requires counterfactual analysis.
> This sounds too metaphysical. A better definition would be: The > value of a good is what people /do/ pay for it.
No, that's the price of the good. See, there's a reason we have different words for these things.
> Because there is > no other way to find out. The requirement of the market being > ``open and competitive'' seems bogus. A black market is > perfectly fine, too, if you want to find out what people are > willing to pay for something.
Um, the point of the word "value" is to try and identify something which is producer-independent, which is "inherent in the good" somehow. Since we are no longer medievals, we know that value is contextual on plenty of social factors. Since we are not Marx, we know that value is not just a measure of how much effort went into producing a thing.
Value is something people assign to objects, but it's something producer-independent. Value is what the price *would* be if there were a commodity market for a thing. That's just what it means; if you don't like that definition, then I'd advise you not to use the word, and stick to "price".
> > Free software is therefore not "dumping" for just the same reasons > > that food pantries, free symphony concerts, and public education are > > not dumping--they are not founded on an attempt to seize monopoly > > control and later raise prices above value.
> People /do/ pay for food pantries and free symphony concerts > etc.: By their taxes.
Um, no. First, free symphony concerts and food pantries, in the United States, at least, are *not* principally funded by taxes.
The price of a good is what the *recipient* pays. Because public education is available even to those who do not pay taxes at all, the taxes are not part of the price. Or, if you like, the costs of producing public education are externalized, precisely so that the price can be very low.
> > The value of a good is based on a hypothetical open competetive > > market, and is thus producer-independent. The value of a good is > > independent of what its cost or price happens to be for any one > > manufacturer.
> No, it's not.
You have just decided that "value" is to be synonymous with "price", but that's a pointless game. If you want to say that "value" is not a meaningful concept, then so be it; but what I gave is the general economic definition of the term.
> The value of a good is what people *would* pay for the good in an open > competitive market; this requires counterfactual analysis.
Hmm, I was under the impression that use value was more like the value to the consumer. That is, how much more productive the consumer is with the good than without the good. I guess your "value" here is the "potential sale value"? But open source software exists in an open competitive market. Anyone could come and create something better. However, the use value of that new product minus the use value of the open source product must be greater than the sale price of the new product for it to be successful.
-- -> -/ - Rahul Jain - \- <- -> -\ http://linux.rice.edu/~rahul -=- mailto:rj...@techie.com /- <- -> -/ "Structure is nothing if it is all you got. Skeletons spook \- <- -> -\ people if [they] try to walk around on their own. I really /- <- -> -/ wonder why XML does not." -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp \- <- |--|--------|--------------|----|-------------|------|---------|-----|-| (c)1996-2002, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
> > The value of a good is what people *would* pay for the good in an open > > competitive market; this requires counterfactual analysis.
> Hmm, I was under the impression that use value was more like the value > to the consumer. That is, how much more productive the consumer is > with the good than without the good. I guess your "value" here is the > "potential sale value"?
Yes, I was speaking of sale value, not use value.
> But open source software exists in an open competitive > market. Anyone could come and create something better. However, the > use value of that new product minus the use value of the open source > product must be greater than the sale price of the new product for > it to be successful.
> > > The value of a good is what people *would* pay for the good in an open > > > competitive market; this requires counterfactual analysis.
> > This sounds too metaphysical. A better definition would be: The > > value of a good is what people /do/ pay for it.
> No, that's the price of the good. See, there's a reason we have > different words for these things.
Yes, but it's the other way around, more like in your first post: If I demanded $1000 for the can of beer standing right in front of me right now, that would be its price. Nobody would pay that much, so that clearly is not its value.
> > Because there is > > no other way to find out. The requirement of the market being > > ``open and competitive'' seems bogus. A black market is > > perfectly fine, too, if you want to find out what people are > > willing to pay for something.
> Um, the point of the word "value" is to try and identify something > which is producer-independent, which is "inherent in the good" > somehow. Since we are no longer medievals, we know that value is > contextual on plenty of social factors. Since we are not Marx, we > know that value is not just a measure of how much effort went into > producing a thing.
> Value is something people assign to objects, but it's something > producer-independent.
Right so far, but...
> Value is what the price *would* be if there > were a commodity market for a thing. That's just what it means; if > you don't like that definition, then I'd advise you not to use the > word, and stick to "price".
There is no need for a ``would''. That's too metaphysical. The value of a thing is /measured/ by what people pay for it. Occam's razor. The price of a thing is what I demand for it, even if noone buys; these usually coincide, if I really want to sell. I didn't invent this definition, either; it's pretty common.
> > > Free software is therefore not "dumping" for just the same reasons > > > that food pantries, free symphony concerts, and public education are > > > not dumping--they are not founded on an attempt to seize monopoly > > > control and later raise prices above value.
> > People /do/ pay for food pantries and free symphony concerts > > etc.: By their taxes.
> Um, no. First, free symphony concerts and food pantries, in the > United States, at least, are *not* principally funded by taxes.
In Germany, they are. Either way: Somebody does pay for the food... ``There is no such thing as a free lunch'' (Milton Friedman?)
> The price of a good is what the *recipient* pays.
In fact, it is what's printed on the price tag. This usually coincides with what is paid.
> Because public education is available even to those who do not > pay taxes at all,
Everybody pays taxes, and lots of them. Everytime you buy a goddamn lolly you are paying taxes.
> the taxes are not part of the price. Or, if you like, the > costs of producing public education are externalized, precisely > so that the price can be very low.
You have to add what the students pay with what the state pays for the education. This will be /very/ expensive. One of the universities in Berlin, the Freie Universitaet, charges its students (almost) nothing. But it costs the tax payer, that's me, about a /billion/ German Marks /each/ year.
> > > The value of a good is based on a hypothetical open competetive > > > market, and is thus producer-independent. The value of a good is > > > independent of what its cost or price happens to be for any one > > > manufacturer.
> > No, it's not.
> You have just decided that "value" is to be synonymous with "price", > but that's a pointless game. If you want to say that "value" is not a > meaningful concept, then so be it; but what I gave is the general > economic definition of the term.
All I am saying is that the value of a thing is its price at the time an exchange is made. There might be several parties charged at the same time, then it's the sum of all charges. I did /not/ invent this.
Regards, -- Nils Goesche Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
Nils Goesche <n...@cartan.de> writes: > > Value is what the price *would* be if there > > were a commodity market for a thing. That's just what it means; if > > you don't like that definition, then I'd advise you not to use the > > word, and stick to "price".
> There is no need for a ``would''. That's too metaphysical. The > value of a thing is /measured/ by what people pay for it. > Occam's razor. The price of a thing is what I demand for it, > even if noone buys; these usually coincide, if I really want to > sell. I didn't invent this definition, either; it's pretty common.
You are conflating market price with value. Look, if the notion of value is "too metaphysical" for you, then I'd advise you not to use it. But redefining it is not likely to improve understanding.
> In Germany, they are. Either way: Somebody does pay for the > food... ``There is no such thing as a free lunch'' (Milton Friedman?)
That's right. The food has a *cost* regardless. But the cost isn't the point here. There are many things of great value with almost no cost, and many things of great cost with almost no value. (Which is true for both sale value and use value).
> > Because public education is available even to those who do not > > pay taxes at all,
> Everybody pays taxes, and lots of them. Everytime you buy a > goddamn lolly you are paying taxes.
In the US, public education is usually funded only by property taxes, which are paid only by landowners. Lessors usually internalize that cost, so that people who rent housing pay property tax indirectly too.
However, public education is available to those who don't pay the tax in any way, shape, or form.
> You have to add what the students pay with what the state pays > for the education. This will be /very/ expensive. One of the > universities in Berlin, the Freie Universitaet, charges its > students (almost) nothing. But it costs the tax payer, that's > me, about a /billion/ German Marks /each/ year.
Yes, it has a high cost. But a very low price.
> All I am saying is that the value of a thing is its price at the > time an exchange is made. There might be several parties charged > at the same time, then it's the sum of all charges. I did /not/ > invent this.
That is known as "market sale value", but it's not intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is defined as what market sale value would be in if the market were commodified. If you find that "too metaphysical", then I'd advise not using.
> > All I am saying is that the value of a thing is its price at the > > time an exchange is made. There might be several parties charged > > at the same time, then it's the sum of all charges. I did /not/ > > invent this.
> That is known as "market sale value", but it's not intrinsic value. > Intrinsic value is defined as what market sale value would be in if > the market were commodified. If you find that "too metaphysical", > then I'd advise not using.
Look, apparently we have learned from different schools of economy. I don't think it is of any value (pun intended) if we discuss this further (we are /still/ in comp.lang.lisp), like ``It's defined this way'' - ``No, it's defined that way'' - ``No, it's not'' ad infinitum. And I have to go to bed now (about nine hours later here?). Good night.
Regards, -- Nils Goesche Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
> > The price of a good is what the manufacturer charges others for it.
> > The value of a good is what people *would* pay for the good in an open > > competitive market; this requires counterfactual analysis.
> This sounds too metaphysical. A better definition would be: The > value of a good is what people /do/ pay for it. Because there is > no other way to find out. The requirement of the market being > ``open and competitive'' seems bogus. A black market is > perfectly fine, too, if you want to find out what people are > willing to pay for something.
Remember that labour is worth something.
The amount of time that someone is willing to invest can be translated into a monetary value if you like, and this is where the value of free software is derived from.
How much time you're willing to spend stuffing about with it.
Of course some people's time is worth more than others :)
* Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen | No, it's the other great Libertarian intellectual -- Robert Heinlein.
That must be the worst insult on this newsgroup so far. Heinlein himself expressed extreme disgust with the Libertarians who took him to heart -- they had, in his view, grasped exactly nothing about what he had tried to do, which seems to be a recurring theme among authors who are taken to heart by Libertarians. What Heinlein did so well was write credible stories that explored political views that differed in important ways from today's prevailing views with credible what-if--scenarios based on possible technological futures. They are in fact so credible that people who had read Stranger in a Strenge Land wrote him angry letters accusing him of betraying them when they read his more "military society" books, which they apparently found equally credible. Heinlein was the author who taught me what "suspension of disbelief" was _really_ about, but it is a suspension, not an abdication, like the Libertarians tend to think.
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: > * Brian Spilsbury > | Remember that labour is worth something.
> I thought this part of Marxism was the most resoundingly debunked. :)
Hehe, not quite. Labor is worth something (Marx was right about that), but the value of a good is not the sum of the effort that went in to it (this is his great mistake).
> Hehe, not quite. Labor is worth something (Marx was right about > that), but the value of a good is not the sum of the effort that went > in to it (this is his great mistake).
> > Hehe, not quite. Labor is worth something (Marx was right about > > that), but the value of a good is not the sum of the effort that went > > in to it (this is his great mistake).
> IIRC, he (Marx) did not actually say that.
Right. Marx defines the value of a commodity in terms of the *socially necessary* labour time required for its production.
-- "Das Auto hat keine Zukunft. Ich setze aufs Pferd." Wilhelm II. (1859-1941)
> > > Hehe, not quite. Labor is worth something (Marx was right about > > > that), but the value of a good is not the sum of the effort that went > > > in to it (this is his great mistake).
> > IIRC, he (Marx) did not actually say that.
> Right. Marx defines the value of a commodity in terms of the > *socially necessary* labour time required for its production.
Yes indeed, I'm sorry for giving the cartoon version of Marx; I should have been more careful.
On 27 Mar 2002 11:10:00 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: >> * Brian Spilsbury >> | Remember that labour is worth something.
>> I thought this part of Marxism was the most resoundingly debunked. :) > Hehe, not quite. Labor is worth something (Marx was right about > that),
Only if "zero" counts as "something"; but that's the same "something" as "nothing".
-- " ... I told my doctor I got all the exercise I needed being a pallbearer for all my friends who run and do exercises!" -- Winston Churchill (setq reply-to (concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(#\@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
> Paul Foley <mycroft+...@actrix.gen.nz> writes: >> On 27 Mar 2002 11:10:00 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> > Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: >> >> * Brian Spilsbury >> >> | Remember that labour is worth something.
>> >> I thought this part of Marxism was the most resoundingly debunked. :)
>> > Hehe, not quite. Labor is worth something (Marx was right about >> > that),
>> Only if "zero" counts as "something"; but that's the same "something" >> as "nothing". > Huh? By all the measures here, labor is worth something. People can > and do pay dearly for it, it has use value, etc.
No. People do not pay for it, they pay to avoid it. That's different.
Your labour is only worth something to the extent that it saves someone else having to do it. That's an important distinction, because, for example, you may only have to do very little labour to save someone else a tremendous amount -- the value is the (large) amount saved, not the (small) amount performed. Or you may have to do an enormous amount of work to save very me little; the value I put on your labour only has to do with what it saves me, with no regard whatsoever for what it costs you -- what it costs you (i.e., labour) therefore has zero value.
-- In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Paul Foley <mycroft+...@actrix.gen.nz> writes: > No. People do not pay for it, they pay to avoid it. That's different.
I'm speaking of the market in labor that actually exists, nothing more, nothing less. I can sell my labor. That's all I mean.
> Or you may have to do an enormous amount of work to save very me > little; the value I put on your labour only has to do with what it > saves me, with no regard whatsoever for what it costs you -- what it > costs you (i.e., labour) therefore has zero value.
Eek, once again.
The *cost* of my labor is what it costs me to do the work--food, for example, to sustain my body, and a variety of other intangibles.
The *price* of my labor is what I sell it for.
The *use value* of my labor is how much more productive it makes you.
The *price value* of my labor is what I could sell it for in an open competitive market. (According to my definition, at least; some apparently find this controversial).
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> wrote in message <news:3226239808766909@naggum.net>... > * Brian Spilsbury > | Remember that labour is worth something.
> I thought this part of Marxism was the most resoundingly debunked. :)
You thought wrong :)
My labour is a salable commodity, which is why we have this idea called 'employment'.
I may be free to choose which employer to sell my labour to (providing that I can find some which want to purchase), and likewise I am free to employ myself to labour on free software projects as long as I like, for as long as I can afford to.
It may be unprofitable or stupid to do so, but then again, it may provide entertainment value or facilitate some other process.
It really should not have to be pointed out that labour has a clear market value, and can be bought and sold.
> Only if "zero" counts as "something"; but that's the same "something" > as "nothing".
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG | Huh? By all the measures here, labor is worth something. People can | and do pay dearly for it, it has use value, etc.
Sure, but if you just "work" and claim that people should give you some money, you will see that labor itself has no value. Unfortunately, effort itself is rewarded in some forms of education, so if you work hard on something in a counterproductive way, you still get rewarded. Some of my teachers refused to give me high grades because I did not need to work at all to get excellent results. (It never became clear to me what they wanted me to do.) The same problem appears to have been at the core of my skirmishes with the tax authories. Because I could earn enough money keep myself comfortably supported for a whole year in three months and did not fancy paying a lot more taxes just to get at lot less money back from my effort, I took the rest of the year off to study or do volunteer work (such as Emacs and SGML), but these morons thought that anyone who does not report working nor collect unemployment benefits, must of course be defrauding the government. I have also worked with people who got pissed at me for suddenly figuring out how to do something a lot smarter and cutting my development time and costs in half and still wanting to get paid in full according to contract. If I had wasted away the extra time and not "surprised" them with early results, they would apparently have been a lot happier. My intolerance for morons has probably been shaped by these experiences.
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
* Brian Spilsbury | My labour is a salable commodity, which is why we have this idea | called 'employment'.
Well, in my culture, if you just do whatever you like when you are employed instead of doing specifically what you are told to do as part of your employment contract, you cease to be employed shortly thereafter. I have no idea how your culture works, but if your employers just pay people to "work", I think you might have a problem.
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
