Total Value in the World
KeegSands
to add value to the world's value or is it a zero sum game, where
resources (value) is just moved from one area to another?
Example: If you were to take the value of everything on earth today
and compare it to the value in the year 1500, would you get the same
amount?
W Finklestein
What's the main difference between the world of 1500 and today?
Knowledge. In Julian Simon's view that denotes some unkowable present
value for the world.
Michael L. Coburn
Whereas the population of the planet has long since passed the point
where the division and specialization of land and labor will have
thouroughly taken place and so long as the population does not fall
below that threshhold then the "value" of the planet in the eyes of
those in the majority will be inversely proportional to the population
and directly proportional to the level of _real_ capital. But value
as observed from the aristocratic point of view in a system where the
means of production are controlled by the aristocratic few will be
the exact opposite. As population increases the control of the
many by the few is enhanced and as the technology stagnates the
control is also enhanced. The scarcity of land and of produced
goods adds value to ownership. So it depends on how you measure
value. Based on your question you probably intend to measure value
from the aristocratice standpoint. i.e. what is this section
of land "worth" measured in the labor it will command.
--
Mike Coburn
"It's the tax system, stupid. No, it's the ludicrous
banking system. Well, actually, its both. With proper
consideration we find these injustices are made
possible by the lack of representation of The People
in their government". -- http://GreaterVoice.org
Mark Monson
Are you counting both land and man made goods?
What unit of measure are you using?
--
Mark Monson
Grinch
>Does the overall value of the world change over time? Is it possible
>to add value to the world's value or is it a zero sum game, where
>resources (value) is just moved from one area to another?
Resources = value ? What a bizarre thought.
>Example: If you were to take the value of everything on earth today
>and compare it to the value in the year 1500, would you get the same
>amount?
Well, to start with, how much value do you put on your extra 40 or 50
years of life expectancy?
KeegSands
I am counting both land and man made goods. My thoughts are that the
physical resources of the planet stay the same as time passes, but
just change from one form to another. For example wood is used to
build houses, so the resource's value is converted from one form to
another. Based on the fixed nature of the natural resources and the
fact they move from one form to another leads me to believe the total
value of everything is always a fixed amount, but it is just allocated
in different ways. BUT do humans add value to these natural resources
through technological advances, thus causing the value of the world to
increase over time. I think without advances the resources would
basically just continually be shifted around and there would be no
overall increase in value.
Michael L. Coburn
I think this is MARVELOUS. MARVELOUS, MARVELOUS!!!
Asking "economists" to state _THEIR_ value theory in plain English
is a surefire way to discredit Republican assholes. And it is
the means by which Austrian horseshit (other than Von Mises and
his wing of Austrians) is utterly refuted. The utility stupidity
is simply a measure in "Daniel Boone" individualism and there is
no way to convert such "micro" tripe into any form of intelligent
"macro" indicators that can be measured. The entire purpose of
Hayekian micro trash is to destroy any shared value theory that
could be used to measure the success or failure of _government_
pilicy. We are left counting Fig Newton dollars and blowing
smoke -- Republican heaven.
Michael L. Coburn
Who let you in here. Sane people don't normally post to this news
group. As you do seem to be sane, however, I would like to explor
your value theory to make sure I understand it, so I'll "guess"
at it and you can tell me where I'm wrong. My first "guess" is:
Value is the aggregate of "goods" in the world where "goods"
are those things created by the labor of men.
Paul Brinkley
<mik...@gte.net> wrote:
>KeegSands wrote:
>
>> I am counting both land and man made goods. My thoughts are that the
>> physical resources of the planet stay the same as time passes, but
>> just change from one form to another. For example wood is used to
>> build houses, so the resource's value is converted from one form to
>> another. Based on the fixed nature of the natural resources and the
>> fact they move from one form to another leads me to believe the total
>> value of everything is always a fixed amount, but it is just allocated
>> in different ways. BUT do humans add value to these natural resources
>> through technological advances, thus causing the value of the world to
>> increase over time. I think without advances the resources would
>> basically just continually be shifted around and there would be no
>> overall increase in value.
>
>Who let you in here. Sane people don't normally post to this news
>group. As you do seem to be sane, however, I would like to explor
>your value theory to make sure I understand it, so I'll "guess"
>at it and you can tell me where I'm wrong. My first "guess" is:
>
>Value is the aggregate of "goods" in the world where "goods"
>are those things created by the labor of men.
He seems to also be including natural resources, such as wood, oil,
minerals, metals, etc. So bauxite would be of some valuable, though
more value is added via human effort to refine it into aluminum.
One could argue that bauxite was valueless in the time of ancient
Egypt, say, because no one knew about aluminum back then (except the
aliens, I suppose), let alone how to extract it from bauxite. So the
value of a natural resource would be dependent in part on knowledge.
Totus arx occupamur nos.
Paul Brinkley
la...@starpower.net
tonyp
"Grinch" <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote
> Well, to start with, how much value do you put on your extra 40 or
50
> years of life expectancy?
Whatever that "value" may be, does the world's aggregate of "value"
increase more if
1) Population doubles, with constant life expectancy, or
2) Life expectancy doubles, with constant population?
I have no idea, myself. I'm just trying to get a handle on what
"value" means in this context.
-- Tony P.
Mason Clark
>On 17 Sep 2002 10:31:35 -0700, keeg...@aol.com (KeegSands) wrote:
>snip<
>>Example: If you were to take the value of everything on earth today
>>and compare it to the value in the year 1500, would you get the same
>>amount?
>
>Well, to start with, how much value do you put on your extra 40 or 50
>years of life expectancy?
>
We need to set up an "Oscar" award for the year's best response. This
one may win for 2002.
Mason C What should we call the award? The "Grinch" award?
Michael L. Coburn
Go back and read what Grinch wrote, and then read it again.
The thing that's easy to miss is the slippry meaning of "value"
and it is illustrated by the part of the sentence that reads
"how much value do _you_ put on" whatever.
This is then amplified by the questions from tonyp on how
we would develop a joint or community measure as opposed
to a personal perspective on the subject. Hayek and
th Rothbard wanted to insist that there was no common
value that was in any way measureable because each person
"values" things subjectively. IMHO that is some very
nifty belly button gazing and metaphysical masturbation
but it does not seem to do us any good if we are attempting
to determine such things as whether or not we have a
good or bad economy or whether our current piece of money
mush could even be referred to as an economy.
I look at life expectancy and see it encapsulated in the
word "comfort" along with security and warmth and freedom
from discomfort and drudgery and all the rest. And then
I look at what tonyp says and think that someone is
attempting to measure economic success as the number
of people on the planet. And as I certainly do not agree
with this latter measure I also begin to see that religious
sentiments may present real problems in agreeing on
"value".
Mark Monson
You still haven't told me what units you will use to measure value.
--
Mark Monson
"To drop a man in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and tell him
he is at liberty to walk ashore, would not be more bitter irony
than to place a man where all the land is appropriated as the
property of other people and to tell him that he is a free man,
at liberty to work for himself and to enjoy his own earnings."
--Henry George, Social Problems.
http://schalkenbach.org/library/george.henry/sp10.html#p-20
Ron Peterson
> I am counting both land and man made goods. My thoughts are that the
> physical resources of the planet stay the same as time passes, but
> just change from one form to another. For example wood is used to
> build houses, so the resource's value is converted from one form to
> another. Based on the fixed nature of the natural resources and the
> fact they move from one form to another leads me to believe the total
> value of everything is always a fixed amount, but it is just allocated
> in different ways. BUT do humans add value to these natural resources
> through technological advances, thus causing the value of the world to
> increase over time. I think without advances the resources would
> basically just continually be shifted around and there would be no
> overall increase in value.
The value of the natural resources is increased by human labor. With
technological advances, products can be made with less labor. Note
the decline in computer prices.
Without technology advances, the cost of certain raw materials will
increase as the more productive mines become depleted.
So, I don't think your hypothesis is correct when there are no
technological advances. But, with sufficient technological advances, the
wealth of world may decrease in terms of human labor, while increasing
in physical terms.
Ron
Jim Blair
.
>> KeegSands wrote:
>>
>> > Does the overall value of the world change over time? Is it possible
>> > to add value to the world's value or is it a zero sum game, where
>> > resources (value) is just moved from one area to another?
>> >
>> > Example: If you were to take the value of everything on earth today
>> > and compare it to the value in the year 1500, would you get the same
>> > amount?
>>
>> Are you counting both land and man made goods?
>Mark Monson <m_mo...@blueridge.com> wrote:
>>
>> What unit of measure are you using?
>
>I am counting both land and man made goods. My thoughts are that the
>physical resources of the planet stay the same as time passes, but
>just change from one form to another. ....
.... I think without advances the resources would
>basically just continually be shifted around and there would be no
>overall increase in value.
Hi,
We had long threads on this in the past. I say "value" of an object is
subjective and measured in the price that someone will pay for it.
You are confusing matter (which is conserved, and the amount of which has
not changed much on the earth in the last 500 years) with the organization
of that matter (which has changed), and with information (which as
increased).
See:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/value.txt
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Jim Blair
>> > Does the overall value of the world change over time? Is it possible
>> > to add value to the world's value or is it a zero sum game, where
>> > resources (value) is just moved from one area to another?
>> >
>> > Example: If you were to take the value of everything on earth today
>> > and compare it to the value in the year 1500, would you get the same
>> > amount?
>>
Hi,
To expand on my earlier reply: The amount of matter on the earth has
changed little during the last 500 years. But the way that matter is
organized has changed a lot, and mostly in ways to make life better for
humans. Houses, water plants and pipes, electric generators and power
lines, farms and farm machinery, computers, etc.
"Value" is a humancentric term: of value to people. More carbon is now in
humans and less in coal beds. But for Dodo birds and Passenger pigeons,
the earth was a better place 500 years ago.
I say "value" is in the way matter is organized, and is determined by
extent to which people prefer one way to another. As measured by the price
(dollars or yen or euros) that they will pay for matter in one form rather
than in another.
(and this omits the value of services)
Michael L. Coburn
> keeg...@aol.com (KeegSands) wrote:
>
>>> > Does the overall value of the world change over time? Is it possible
>>> > to add value to the world's value or is it a zero sum game, where
>>> > resources (value) is just moved from one area to another?
>>> >
>>> > Example: If you were to take the value of everything on earth today
>>> > and compare it to the value in the year 1500, would you get the same
>>> > amount?
>>>
> Hi,
>
> To expand on my earlier reply: The amount of matter on the earth has
> changed little during the last 500 years. But the way that matter is
> organized has changed a lot, and mostly in ways to make life better for
> humans. Houses, water plants and pipes, electric generators and power
> lines, farms and farm machinery, computers, etc.
>
> "Value" is a humancentric term: of value to people. More carbon is now in
> humans and less in coal beds. But for Dodo birds and Passenger pigeons,
> the earth was a better place 500 years ago.
>
> I say "value" is in the way matter is organized, and is determined by
> extent to which people prefer one way to another. As measured by the price
> (dollars or yen or euros) that they will pay for matter in one form rather
> than in another.
>
> (and this omits the value of services)
>
Actually it "omits" that which is of _value_ to most clear thinking
people i.e. the freedom from discomfort and drudgery.
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/value.php
If "Man seeks to satisfy his wants with as little discomfort and
labor unto himself as possible", then the value of the world is
measured in the amount of _freedom_ from such drudgery possessed
by the aggregate of humanity, or by the mean of humanity, or by
the average human, or SOME combo pizza of these measures. And
as we can't actually measure the "good" we must settle for a
measurement of the bad, and seek to minimize it. As the average
number of hours worked by the rudimentarty wage earner in
pursuit of a rudimentary life style would fall, then the "value"
of the world (or the sovereignty, or the universe) will have
increased.
Our world is going to hell in a hand basket.
tonyp
"Jim Blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote
> ... "Value" is a humancentric term: of value to people. ...
>
> I say "value" is in the way matter is organized, and is determined
by
> extent to which people prefer one way to another. As measured by the
price
> (dollars or yen or euros) that they will pay for matter in one form
rather
> than in another.
>
> (and this omits the value of services)
Hey, Jim:
If Johnny has 5 ideas, and he gives Suzy 3 of his ideas, how many
ideas does Johnny have left?
As a 2nd-grade arithmetic quiz question, the above would be clearly
flawed. Sharing ideas is not a zero-sum proposition like sharing
apples, as even 2nd-graders can appreciate. The question makes them
laugh -- I've tried it.
Sophisticates like us, OTOH, are capable of taking almost anything
seriously, so we might even say something like, "Ideas have value,
and the 'total value in the world' is increased when Suzy acquires 3
ideas she did not have before." And we might go on to construct an
interesting calculus which says that 'total value in the world'
necessarily increases as the world's population increases, because
after all "value" does not arise from dead matter but from "ideas".
For example, Mozart's 40th symphony is an idea, and if that idea is
available to 10 billion people it has more "value" than if it is only
available to 5 billion people. Same goes for novels, movies, software,
and possibly even manufactured goods -- or at least the "ideas"
embodied in them. So we have a straightforward recipe for increasing
the "total value in the world": add more people to share the "ideas"
available!
By this ironclad logic, the world will have more 'total value' in the
year 2200 if its population at that time is 100 billion than if it is
still puttering along at about 10 billion. But I wonder whether
either you or I would be happy to live in such a world. Perhaps the
way we're defining "value" leaves something to be desired, eh?
-- Tony P.
Grinch
wrote:
>"Jim Blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote
>
>> ... "Value" is a humancentric term: of value to people. ...
>>
>> I say "value" is in the way matter is organized, and is determined by
>> extent to which people prefer one way to another. As measured by the price
>> (dollars or yen or euros) that they will pay for matter in one form rather
>> than in another.
>>
>> (and this omits the value of services)
>
>Hey, Jim:
>
>If Johnny has 5 ideas, and he gives Suzy 3 of his ideas, how many
>ideas does Johnny have left?
>
>As a 2nd-grade arithmetic quiz question, the above would be clearly
>flawed. Sharing ideas is not a zero-sum proposition like sharing
>apples, as even 2nd-graders can appreciate. The question makes them
>laugh -- I've tried it.
>
>Sophisticates like us, OTOH, are capable of taking almost anything
>seriously, so we might even say something like, "Ideas have value,
>and the 'total value in the world' is increased when Suzy acquires 3
>ideas she did not have before."
And we would probably be quite correct in saying so!
(Assuming Suzy acquired good and true ideas rather than bad or false
ones, of course).
That's why people go to school, to get ideas they didn't have before.
And education does seem to have quite a strong positive effect in
increasing "value" in an economy, even by such mundane quantity
measures as GDP (or "value added'.)
> And we might go on to construct an
>interesting calculus which says that 'total value in the world'
>necessarily increases as the world's population increases, because
>after all "value" does not arise from dead matter but from "ideas".
Absolutely true: "value" does not arise from dead matter but from
"ideas" -- no doubt about that at all.
E.g.: How much value did petroleum oil have before somebody got the
bright idea of how to use it to replace whale oil? It had *negative*
value -- when it seeped to the surface in Pennsylvania it ruined the
farmland, it was the 'farmer's curse.' How much value does it have
now? How much value did that idea add to it? Ask the Saudis.
It is also quite true that -- other things being equal, as always in
econ -- 'total value in the world' increases as the world's population
increases.
As Adam Smith put it in Wealth of Nations, "specialization is limited
by the size of the market" -- specialization being what produces
wealth, as it allows the pursuit and execution of more ideas. More
people, larger markets, more wealth creation.
" ... What takes place among the labourers in a particular workhouse,
takes place, for the same reason, among those of a great society. The
greater their number, the more they naturally divide themselves into
different classes and subdivisions of employment. More heads are
occupied in inventing the most proper machinery for executing the work
of each, and it is, therefore, more likely to be invented ...."
-- WoN
Note the last sentence. "More heads are occupied in inventing..."
That is, if you have 100 people living alone on a desert island, their
ideas aren't going to go far beyond trying to find ways to avoid dying
from starvation or exposure in the near future.
But if you have 300 million people living on a continent, they can
invent silicon chips, DVD players, genetically modified agriculture,
WebTV, Pro Wrestling, leisure suits, alcohol-free beer, and a whole
lot of other nifty things to enjoy during their life expectancy of
near 80.
And as you noted regarding Johnny and Suzy, if Johnny gives Suzy three
of his ideas Suzy has three more but Johnny doesn't have three less.
He still has the three too -- so the society's "wealth of ideas" quite
literally increases, which leads to more tangible wealth.
I.e., very *small* groups of people who invent ideas for things like
silicon chips, more productive agriculture, and WebTV, can increase
the wealth of *unlimited* numbers by transmitting their ideas to
others for use. And increased wealth means more value about us, of
course. As indirectly measured by things like rising GDP.
>For example, Mozart's 40th symphony is an idea, and if that idea is
>available to 10 billion people it has more "value" than if it is only
>available to 5 billion people. Same goes for novels, movies, software,
>and possibly even manufactured goods -- or at least the "ideas"
>embodied in them.
Well, the ones that are copyrighted at least, if we are sticking to
any kind of tangible value. Which leaves Mozart out.
But if Disney can market Donald Duck to a billion people rather than
merely 100 million, certainly the market value of the copyright to
Donald Duck will be expected to go up. And presumably some
incremental value will be added to the lives of the extra 900 million
people in that they now have access to something they didn't have
before -- as evidenced tangibly to the extent that some of them are
willing to pay something for Donald Duck products.
>So we have a straightforward recipe for increasing
>the "total value in the world": add more people to share the "ideas"
>available!
And to *add* to the number of shared ideas of course -- the more
people, the more new ideas get added and shared.
Right on!!
>By this ironclad logic, the world will have more 'total value' in the
>year 2200 if its population at that time is 100 billion than if it is
>still puttering along at about 10 billion. But I wonder whether
>either you or I would be happy to live in such a world.
Adam Smith's logic has been working in practice for hundreds of years,
and is working all around us now -- there's no self-evident reason why
it should stop working at any particular time in the future.
The intuition that the world would nevertheless be a worse place if it
held 100 billion people is no contradiction of it at all -- it merely
expresses the feeling that there may be other processes going on in
the world as well that might have increasing negative effects after
population exceeds a certain number. Other things may not be equal.
That could be. I don't think anyone ever claimed that the increasing
wealth from ideas that accompanies a growing population is the *only*,
exclusive process at work in the world that affects human welfare.
>Perhaps the
>way we're defining "value" leaves something to be desired, eh?
The problem regarding that in this thread is that nobody's defined
"value" yet at all.
Defining value is hard to do, because value is subjective in the mind
of the beholder -- it is not in the thing itself. Something that is
quite valuable to you may be quite useless to me -- or even cause me a
painful rash, giving it a negative value to me.
But we can get an indirect measure of value creation by looking at
prices, which are objective. Prices understate the value of items to
purchasers because items must be worth *at least* their price to
purchasers to be purchased by them -- obviously, in most transactions
the value of the purchased item is worth more than its price to the
purchaser. Prices give a bottom bound.
So it's hard to say what the value of a Mozart symphony is to the
world, since it is out of copyright and nobody has to pay for it. But
it's easier to estimate what the value of a newly created Donald Duck
cartoon is, since you can look at what it's been sold for -- it must
have created at least that much value for someone.
And if we look at a cumulative measure of prices minus costs, or total
economy-wide net "value added", such as GDP, we can get an estimate of
the bottom bound measure of value being created in an economy as a
whole during a period of time.
>-- Tony P.
>
>
tonyp
"Grinch" <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote
> Adam Smith's logic has been working in practice for hundreds of
years,
> and is working all around us now -- there's no self-evident reason
why
> it should stop working at any particular time in the future.
>
> The intuition that the world would nevertheless be a worse place if
it
> held 100 billion people is no contradiction of it at all -- it
merely
> expresses the feeling that there may be other processes going on in
> the world as well that might have increasing negative effects after
> population exceeds a certain number. Other things may not be equal.
Yeah, that's the rub. One rule for a good party is, "The more the
merrier." But as Yogi Berra(?) pointed out, the venue can get "so
crowded that nobody goes there any more."
> The problem regarding that in this thread is that nobody's defined
> "value" yet at all.
Well, both you and Jim have roughly correlated "value" with "what
people are willing to pay" for things. Frankly, I have no better
suggestion. I merely point out that a larger population can always
"pay more" than a smaller population, so the only plausible _economic_
definition of "value" implies that population growth is _economically_
desirable.
Forgive the strained analogy, but consider that the precepts of
economics may be akin to Newton's Laws: logically rigorous, but not
universally applicable. Newton was not wrong to say that F=ma. It's
just that you can't keep "a" up forever. Physical reality imposes a
speed limit, and Newton turns out to be merely the limiting case of a
more comprehensive picture. Likewise in economics: "value"="what
people will pay" may be a useful definition for practical purposes,
but only over a limited range.
BTW, Einstein worked out Special Relativity mostly by conducting
thought experiments. So let's take a stab at one ourselves. Let's
imagine two parallel worlds, and ask how we would decide which has
more "total value" in it. If one of them measures its wealth in
wampum, and the other in nails, it might be hard to settle the
question. But if we let the worlds trade with each other, somehow,
the answer may become blatantly obvious. Deals like the famous
"Manhattan for $24 worth of beads" might easily provide objective
measures of relative "value". Alas, I'm no Einstein, so the thought
experiment involving the imagined trade between any two hypothetical
future Earths is left as an exercise for the reader.
-- Tony P.
Michael L. Coburn
So far, so good.
>> And we might go on to construct an
>>interesting calculus which says that 'total value in the world'
>>necessarily increases as the world's population increases, because
>>after all "value" does not arise from dead matter but from "ideas".
>
> Absolutely true: "value" does not arise from dead matter but from
> "ideas" -- no doubt about that at all.
In a general sense this is obviously the case.
> E.g.: How much value did petroleum oil have before somebody got the
> bright idea of how to use it to replace whale oil? It had *negative*
> value -- when it seeped to the surface in Pennsylvania it ruined the
> farmland, it was the 'farmer's curse.' How much value does it have
> now? How much value did that idea add to it? Ask the Saudis.
>
> It is also quite true that -- other things being equal, as always in
> econ -- 'total value in the world' increases as the world's population
> increases.
But using population as a value theory is self defeating because
"other things being equal" does not apply. If more people simply
"produce" fouled air and unusable water and this more people has
so upset the natural ability of the earth to renew itself and
produce on its own then the majority of us must endure great
hardship instead of _letting_ our sustenance simply _emerge_ as
a gift from nature, the per capita value of the world (and
all that really matters is the per capita value) is simply
_less_ by virtue of the increased population. The point about
education must be stressed. Also the inelasticity of land
must also be considered. And last but not least there is the
wealth distribution, i.e. all the wealth produced by innovation
being funneled into the hands of a few, very opulent and warlike
people will not improve the per capita value of the world and
will instead decrease this value.
> As Adam Smith put it in Wealth of Nations, "specialization is limited
> by the size of the market" -- specialization being what produces
> wealth, as it allows the pursuit and execution of more ideas. More
> people, larger markets, more wealth creation.
>
> " ... What takes place among the labourers in a particular workhouse,
> takes place, for the same reason, among those of a great society. The
> greater their number, the more they naturally divide themselves into
> different classes and subdivisions of employment. More heads are
> occupied in inventing the most proper machinery for executing the work
> of each, and it is, therefore, more likely to be invented ...."
> -- WoN
All fine and well. And if we cram more and more people into
African deserts they will not produce any more value for
themselves because they are more in number. They will simply
starve all the sooner or turn to cannibalism until such time
as they can do otherwise. And to do the same on a worldwide
scale in an attempt to "maximize value" is not
a rational course of action either.
> Note the last sentence. "More heads are occupied in inventing..."
>
> That is, if you have 100 people living alone on a desert island, their
> ideas aren't going to go far beyond trying to find ways to avoid dying
> from starvation or exposure in the near future.
>
> But if you have 300 million people living on a continent, they can
> invent silicon chips, DVD players, genetically modified agriculture,
> WebTV, Pro Wrestling, leisure suits, alcohol-free beer, and a whole
> lot of other nifty things to enjoy during their life expectancy of
> near 80.
And we conveniently change the environment from a desert island
to a continent. What is being evaded here is the inelasticity of land.
Given enough people the entire world would be a desert. And given
a huge disparity in resource ownership an increasing population will
tend to decrease the value of the world from the perspective of
the _majority_ of the people.
> And as you noted regarding Johnny and Suzy, if Johnny gives Suzy three
> of his ideas Suzy has three more but Johnny doesn't have three less.
> He still has the three too -- so the society's "wealth of ideas" quite
> literally increases, which leads to more tangible wealth.
Let's see you do this with land ownership. Land owners benefit
from increasing population as the non owners see a DECREASE in
the "value" of the world. Land ownership is the most prominent
vehicle for rent extraction but not the only such vehicle.
Interest paid to the holders of money (actually, such holders are
the preventer's of economic development), springs instantly to mind.
>
> I.e., very *small* groups of people who invent ideas for things like
> silicon chips, more productive agriculture, and WebTV, can increase
> the wealth of *unlimited* numbers by transmitting their ideas to
> others for use. And increased wealth means more value about us, of
> course. As indirectly measured by things like rising GDP.
So we should do away with patents and coyrights so that these
"ideas" can see a much better dispersal throughout the society?
>>For example, Mozart's 40th symphony is an idea, and if that idea is
>>available to 10 billion people it has more "value" than if it is only
>>available to 5 billion people. Same goes for novels, movies, software,
>>and possibly even manufactured goods -- or at least the "ideas"
>>embodied in them.
>
> Well, the ones that are copyrighted at least, if we are sticking to
> any kind of tangible value. Which leaves Mozart out.
>
> But if Disney can market Donald Duck to a billion people rather than
> merely 100 million, certainly the market value of the copyright to
> Donald Duck will be expected to go up. And presumably some
> incremental value will be added to the lives of the extra 900 million
> people in that they now have access to something they didn't have
> before -- as evidenced tangibly to the extent that some of them are
> willing to pay something for Donald Duck products.
Oh, how many times do we need to stroll down entertainment lane to
firmly plant the idea of "rent is good" in the minds of the masses.
This example does not hold for perscription drugs. computer
software, or technology in general, or for land, because entertainment
is not a necessity to life nor can it be used to compel or relieve
the _need_ for labor, or to prevent the realization of goods by others.
http://GreterVoice.org/econ/glossary/Economic_Rent.php
>>So we have a straightforward recipe for increasing
>>the "total value in the world": add more people to share the "ideas"
>>available!
>
> And to *add* to the number of shared ideas of course -- the more
> people, the more new ideas get added and shared.
>
> Right on!!
This _might_ be called myopia and tunnel vision in
support of some religious fixation on the "second coming".
'If a person or group or culture or creed wishes to believe that an
afterlife will offer eternal rewards that are proportional to one's
Earthly poverty, sickness, disfigurement, ignorance, and brevity of
life, then a system of rules promoting Earthly prosperity, health,
and longevity would be inappropriate. If, however, one seeks rules
that are likely to optimize or maximize "life on Earth," these
rules must at least be consistent with, or respect, the natures of
"life" and "Earth."' --- Ayn Rand
>>By this ironclad logic, the world will have more 'total value' in the
>>year 2200 if its population at that time is 100 billion than if it is
>>still puttering along at about 10 billion. But I wonder whether
>>either you or I would be happy to live in such a world.
>
> Adam Smith's logic has been working in practice for hundreds of years,
> and is working all around us now -- there's no self-evident reason why
> it should stop working at any particular time in the future.
Here is what Adam Smith _ACTUALLY_ had to say about value:
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/value.php
The value of the earth is measured as the _freedom_ from
drudgery on a per capita basis.
Also consider wealth which _CAN_ _BE_ disproportionate
power, and force.
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/wealth.php
> The intuition that the world would nevertheless be a worse place if it
> held 100 billion people is no contradiction of it at all -- it merely
> expresses the feeling that there may be other processes going on in
> the world as well that might have increasing negative effects after
> population exceeds a certain number. Other things may not be equal.
Correct. And that is why population, as a value theory, fails
miserably.
> That could be. I don't think anyone ever claimed that the increasing
> wealth from ideas that accompanies a growing population is the *only*,
> exclusive process at work in the world that affects human welfare.
I thought we were looking for a way to measure the value of
the world? It seems to me that you must measure it in the
freedom that the people have to pursue their own visions. If
some disparity of wealth will enhance that freedom then to that
extent would a disparity in wealth be a "good" thing; to that
extent would "value" be maximized. If increasing population
will increase the per capita _freedom_ from drudgery and
maximize the _freedom_ the average man has to pursue his own
agenda then such population increase is peachy keen. If the
"marketing" of Donald Duck provides people with a persuit
for their leisure time then that is all well and good. But
it only adds to the value of the world by virtue of the incomes
it provides to those who would otherwise have to work harder
or longer at making a living. Expressed in a different way: The
wealth (or value of the world) already exists in the form of
"free time" distributed among the potential "Donald Duck"
consumers. That wealth is being redistributed/shared with those
who are providing the Donald Duck cartoons.
>>Perhaps the
>>way we're defining "value" leaves something to be desired, eh?
>
> The problem regarding that in this thread is that nobody's defined
> "value" yet at all.
>
> Defining value is hard to do, because value is subjective in the mind
> of the beholder -- it is not in the thing itself. Something that is
> quite valuable to you may be quite useless to me -- or even cause me a
> painful rash, giving it a negative value to me.
Men seek to gratify WHATEVER desires they may have with the
minimum expense of their own labor or discomfort. And though
there may be some small minority of individuals that seek
discomfort for its own sake, or that seek to enhance the comfort
or benefit of some object other then the self and the family,
such individuals should not be allowed to unduly limit the
progress of the society as a whole in its endeavor to enhance
social utility for the vast majority, i.e. to enhance the value
of the world on a per capita basis.
> But we can get an indirect measure of value creation by looking at
> prices, which are objective. Prices understate the value of items to
> purchasers because items must be worth *at least* their price to
> purchasers to be purchased by them -- obviously, in most transactions
> the value of the purchased item is worth more than its price to the
> purchaser. Prices give a bottom bound.
Trades happen because each party to the trade values his own
labor or the command of labor he possesses (money, gold, saved
up jars of peaches, diamond watches, whatever), less than
he values the object of his desire. The specialization
of labor CREATES this divergent assessment of value in all
of the objects of trade and that is what makes FREE trades
happen.
> So it's hard to say what the value of a Mozart symphony is to the
> world, since it is out of copyright and nobody has to pay for it. But
> it's easier to estimate what the value of a newly created Donald Duck
> cartoon is, since you can look at what it's been sold for -- it must
> have created at least that much value for someone.
The actual "value" of the cartoons is the freedom from drudgery
it provides to the cartoon creators and marketing people. By
virtue of the fact that other people in the society were wealthy
enough to dispose of some of the fruits of their labors in this
frivolous way, the producers of Donald Duck cartoons were able to
avoid cleaning toilets in George Bush's house. This does not
make George Bush real happy, but the rest of us are certainly
a lot better off.
> And if we look at a cumulative measure of prices minus costs, or total
> economy-wide net "value added", such as GDP, we can get an estimate of
> the bottom bound measure of value being created in an economy as a
> whole during a period of time.
This seems a rather obscure and indirect way to measure value
and in all likelihood it is the measure of anti-value, i.e.
the measure of how much toil and trouble is taking place. As
those of opulence swap cartoons for hulahoops and the great
leaders watch as the pyramids are constructed, the actual
producers in the economy have less and less free time to even
just observe all the money changing hands. A much better indicator
of the value of the United States would be the inverse of what
the BLS calls the "The Civilian Employment-Population Ratio".
This statistic tells us how many people in the family must
work outside the home in order to "make ends meet". The United
States has value to those who will benefit from its output and
that value _should_ be measured in the "good" that can be
obtained for a given amount of labor or discomfort. The
aggregate "good" is increased by population, but if there is
a disproportionate distribution of this good, or if we erect
barriers to specialization and trade SUCH AS INCOME TAXES,
or if we fail to properly educate the increasing population
so that they may participate in the division and specialization
of labor, then the net value per capita of the United States will
decrease as population increases.
Jim Blair
Grinch:
>
>> The problem regarding that in this thread is that nobody's defined
>> "value" yet at all.
"tonyp" <to...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>
>Well, both you and Jim have roughly correlated "value" with "what
>people are willing to pay" for things. Frankly, I have no better
>suggestion. I merely point out that a larger population can always
>"pay more" than a smaller population, so the only plausible _economic_
>definition of "value" implies that population growth is _economically_
>desirable.
Hi,
I was proposing that the relative "value" to me of a set of "items" (which
could include both "goods" and "services") was indicated by the price that
I would pay for them. I don't say this idea can be generalized to the
entire world. But as Grinch says, the price is the lower limit to the
value as long as SOMEONE is willing to pay that price for it.
>
>Forgive the strained analogy, but consider that the precepts of
>economics may be akin to Newton's Laws: logically rigorous, but not
>universally applicable. Newton was not wrong to say that F=ma. It's
>just that you can't keep "a" up forever. Physical reality imposes a
>speed limit, and Newton turns out to be merely the limiting case of a
>more comprehensive picture. Likewise in economics: "value"="what
>people will pay" may be a useful definition for practical purposes,
>but only over a limited range.
Perhaps the "Law of Diminishing Returns" applies to people? Or at least
to people on earth? More is better, but above some number, the gain from
each additional one becomes less, and at some number becomes zero and even
negative?
>BTW, Einstein worked out Special Relativity mostly by conducting
>thought experiments. So let's take a stab at one ourselves. Let's
>imagine two parallel worlds, and ask how we would decide which has
>more "total value" in it.
This reminds me of an old 1998 post of mine:
I seem to remember a Star Trek episode (of if not, there should be
such) where there are two different planets in a solar system: a
rich one and a poor one. But they looked a lot alike to the visiting
Enterprise crew.
The people on both lived in similar houses, ate
similar food, and traveled to similar jobs in similar ways.
The rich planet was rich because everyone had a high income (but
prices were also very high). On the poor planet the wages and
incomes were much lower (but the prices were also lower).
People on the rich planet could afford to have expensive modern
art on their walls from artists who had moved beyond realism to
drawing pure abstraction. But people on the poor planet could only
afford to hang crude pictures of lines and colors on their walls.
People on the rich planet went to concerts by highly paid rock stars,
but on the poor planet they could afford only to listen to kids
banging on drums and making a lot of noise.
On the rich planet people collected expensive Beanie Babies, but
on the poor planet they could afford only cloth bags in the shape of
animals and stuffed with beans, etc.
Michael L. Coburn
"value" is always and forever a subjective term. So I will not
insult anyone's intelligence by claiming that I have found the
objective definition of value. What I will claim is that Adam Smith's
version of "value" will work for all cases if one begins with the
premise that humans want to satisfy their desires with the least
amount of labor (discomfor actually) to themselves. And on that
basis the value of the earth s perceived by man has been greatly
enhanced by the technological developments achieved by man and by
the division and specialization of both labor and land. If we
observe that the division and specialization of land and labor
is a technological achievement then we conclude that technological
achievement is the creator of all value that would arise in
addition to that which is simply a gift from nature (the fishes
of the sea, the plants and animals).
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/value.php
But _you_ may be asking a different question entirely, and attempting
to measure the wealth of the world. And in this endeavor you will
have a different kind of problem:
http://GreatewrVoice.org/econ/glossary/wealth.php
If you attempt to include that which has no labor or capital
as inputs then you are talking about the value of power and
force alone. Your are including the enforced ownership of
land (the right to restrict the access of others to nature
and the bounty produced by nature or the bounty that can be
employed by one's labor to produce goods) or some other coercive
tool (a sword or a gun and the threat of incarceration or
bodily injury) in your assessment of value. Once there are
more than a few people in an economy then disputes over who
will get to use/possess the land will arise. Do not confuse
these "rights" to use land as _MATERIAL_ wealth. A raw diamond,
a gold nugget, or any other jewel will have the same value
(the ability to command labor in those who seek such items)
regardless of who would own it and that value will not change
until labor, in some form, is applied. i.e. the taking of
the diamond from the earth and the cutting of the diamond,
the refining of gold into pure form, the shaping of jewelry.
The value of the world is not measured in gold or diamonds
or money. The value of the world is measured in the bounty
(usable "goods") that man can extract from nature by virtue
of his labor and his technology. And thus, the value of the
earth as perceived by the mass of humanity is the result of
nature and all technological advance that is not "owned" by
some dominant force.
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/Economic_Rent.php
And each individual may assess this "value of the world"
as the opulence it will afford him, or the freedom from
drudgery his lack of respect for such opulence might
provide.