What Determines Value?
Archie Kennedy
value. For instance; why is a shirt worth less than a table
(generally)?
Archie
Hartmann Schaffer
do you mean value or price? the latter sometimes has a relation to
the former
hs
--
Lbh unir whfg ivbyngrq gur Qvtvgny Zvyraavhz Pbclevtug Npg ol oernxvat
gur cebgrpgvba bs pbclevtugrq zngrevny. Vs lbh ner abg n pvgvmra be
erfvqrag bs gur HFN, lbh evfx orvat vzcevfbarq naq uryq jvgubhg onvy
sbe hc gb gjb jrrxf hcba ragel gb gur HFN
(c) Copyright 2001 by Hartmann Schaffer (signature only)
francispoon
> I'm curious about people's beliefs about what is it that determines
> value.
Which kind of value? Spiritual? Materialistic? Moralistic?
For instance; why is a shirt worth less than a table
> (generally)?
>
Materialistic value is determined by what people are willing to pay.
Not sure about the rest.
FP
Archie Kennedy
Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
> In article <3B89793D...@hotmail.com>,
> Archie Kennedy <aken...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > I'm curious about people's beliefs about what is it that determines
> > value. For instance; why is a shirt worth less than a table
> > (generally)?
>
> do you mean value or price? the latter sometimes has a relation to
> the former
I'll clarify here. What determines the exchange value of commodities?
Archie
>
>
>
> --
Archie Kennedy
francispoon wrote:
I have materialistic value in mind.
So you are suggesting that supply and demand determine the value of a commodity. I agree in as
much as supply and demand may explain the exact price a commodity sells for at a given time and
place, but it doesn't explain why things have the exchange value that they do. For instance, a
new pair of socks always has less value than a new car. It doesn't matter how much the socks are
in demand or how small the supply is. The car is always worth more.
Archie
ciceroii
It's the free market, you simpleton. Have you ever heard of the term
"supply and demand"? Why don't you read just one good book on
free-market
economics like Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom". You can order
it
at Chapters Books over the Net.
>
> Archie
Chris Delanoy
> So you are suggesting that supply and demand determine the value
> of a commodity. I agree in as much as supply and demand may
> explain the exact price a commodity sells for at a given time and
> place, but it doesn't explain why things have the exchange value
> that they do. For instance, a new pair of socks always has less
> value than a new car. It doesn't matter how much the socks are
> in demand or how small the supply is. The car is always worth
> more.
Prices are a marginal phenomenon, which means that items like a pair of
socks or a loaf of bread, which are available in nearly limitless abundance,
are valued much less than an item like a car or a diamond ring which are
more unique. When people act on the market, their choices and values are
not made with respect to general classes of goods, but rather to marginal
quantities. We purchase a loaf of bread, not a general class of goods
called "bread" which encompasses all loaves for all time - which is why
diamonds are far more expensive than bread, despite the feeling one might
have that the general class "bread" is more valuable to human life than the
general class "diamonds."
Another factor is input costs. While costs do not govern price (the costs
themselves BEING a price, it would be absurd to say that "prices are
determined by prices"), they do govern long-term profitability and provide
the incentive for people to actually produce the things which are being
priced. If the demand for cars was such that the price of a car was the
same as the price of a pair of socks, while the input costs remained similar
to what they are today, then nobody would ever produce that car. The costs
don't determine the price of the car, but they do determine whether its
production is a worthwhile investment.
I'd go on, but I have to leave for work.
Chris Delanoy
-----
"What's 'just' has been debated for centuries but let me offer you my
definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn.
Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you --
and why?"
- Walter Williams
Carnally Heroic Things
<aken...@hotmail.com> eloquently pondered:
>I'm curious about people's beliefs about what is it that determines
>value. For instance; why is a shirt worth less than a table
>(generally)?
Price is determined by a lot of complex factors, one of which is the
cost of the raw materials. It is, for example, a lot easier and
cheaper to harvest enough cotton to make a shirt than it is to harvest
enough wood to make a table. (It is, in addition, a lot easier to
replace the planted cotton than it is to replace the tree -- a
replanted tree may not itself become harvestable for building wood
until 20 or 30 years or more have passed, whereas new cotton plants
are harvestable much more quickly after planting.)
The name of the company manufacturing the product also comes into play
as a prestige factor -- for example, an Armani shirt will be more
"valuable" than a Zellers shirt, and even more "valuable" than an IKEA
table.
There are other factors as well; these are just two.
Craig, food for thought
SunnyJim
Depends on the shirt and table.
What we pay for and value something is its absolute usefulness to
'society'. IOW, we pay people and price things exactly to what they
are worth.
>
>Archie
>
SunnyJim
Be nice once in a while you jerk.
>>
>> Archie
Chris Delanoy
news:3b8a8417....@news.gv.shawcable.net...
> > It's the free market, you simpleton. Have you ever heard of
> > the term "supply and demand"? Why don't you read just
> > one good book on free-market economics like Milton
> > Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom". You can order it
> > at Chapters Books over the Net.
> Be nice once in a while you jerk.
And besides his buffoonery, "Capitalism and Freedom" is a pretty weak
recommendation for answering the question posed in the first place. So even
if he wasn't an asshole, he'd still be of little use.
David Deilley
"Chris Delanoy" <ch...@propertyrights.net> wrote in message
news:n9wi7.98125$b_3.12...@news0.telusplanet.net...
> SunnyJim <su...@wiggly.com> wrote in message
> news:3b8a8417....@news.gv.shawcable.net...
>
> > > It's the free market, you simpleton. Have you ever heard of
> > > the term "supply and demand"? Why don't you read just
> > > one good book on free-market economics like Milton
> > > Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom". You can order it
> > > at Chapters Books over the Net.
>
> > Be nice once in a while you jerk.
>
> And besides his buffoonery, "Capitalism and Freedom" is a pretty weak
> recommendation for answering the question posed in the first place. So
even
> if he wasn't an asshole, he'd still be of little use.
>
> Chris Delanoy
Do you mean Lambourn or Friedman - or both?
ciceroii
Chris Delanoy wrote:
>
> SunnyJim <su...@wiggly.com> wrote in message
> news:3b8a8417....@news.gv.shawcable.net...
Ciceroii wrote:
>
> > > It's the free market, you simpleton. Have you never heard of
> > > the term "supply and demand"? Why don't you read just
> > > one good book on free-market economics like Milton
> > > Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom". You can order it
> > > at Chapters Books over the Net.
>
> > Be nice once in a while you jerk.
>
> And besides his buffoonery, "Capitalism and Freedom" is a pretty weak
> recommendation for answering the question posed in the first place.
No, it isn't. It answers this question and many more in economics.
So even
> if he wasn't an asshole,
To whom are you referring, Milton Friedman? He is one of the last
persons
I thought you would ever refer to as an asshole or a buffoon
Of course, Chris Delanoy is one of these wacky radically left
libertarians. He might as
well call himself a loony anarchist.
ciceroii
Delanoy wouldn't even know. He is incoherent, high on pot again.
Archie Kennedy
> It's the free market, you simpleton. Have you ever heard of the term
> "supply and demand"? Why don't you read just one good book on
> free-market
> economics like Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom". You can order
> it
> at Chapters Books over the Net.
That was uncalled for. When have I ever insulted you?
The reason I raise the question is because we find ourselves in the midst of
a grand experiment that will undoubtedly have devestating consequences for
the vast majority. The economic experiment penned by your friends Freidman,
Mises, and Hayek as well as the French economist Say. .
On the question of value, these marginalists have parted company with Adam
Smith and Ricardo who knew that it was central to scientific economic study
to understand what determines value. They tackled questions about what it
is that encourages wealth to grow and what determines it's distribution
between classes in society. They saw an objective measure of value as a
precondition for coming to terms with these problems. Smith suggested it
was to be found in labour. Ricardo built his work from these notions and
developed the idea of use value as opposed to exchange value to be
elaborated on later by Marx.
There is no doubt that the invisible hand that you marginalists have as a
basis for economic theory is valid, especially on a micro level. However,
when we consider the confounding factors of the larger economy, supply and
demand curves and marginal utility curves simply can't explain much. It is
superficial and it is 'vulgar economics'. We must go deeper. We must go to
Ricardo, Smith and for more depth, Marx.
The notion that the invisible hand will produce what is best for society is
another question. For example, a given society needs more medicine or
health care or housing...whatever. The market suggests however that
nintendos are more profitable. Nintendos will be produced.
Capitalism is beyond Keynes at this point and it may be that Keynes policies
are simply archaic. Besides, it could be argued that defence spending has
done more for the health of capitalism in the 20th century than Keynes
policies.
Advanced capitalism is not living up to the promise of stability or
equilibrium. Capitalism is showing itself to be an anarchistic loose hose,
flipping and whipping depending on the mood of speculators. Rather than
stability, the economy is subject to the whims of a grand casino game.
The theory of supply and demand helps explain the price of something in a
given time or place but it does not explain why things have the exchange
value they have.
The theory that does have far more explaining power is Smith's labour theory
of value. According to this theory, the exchange value of commodities is
determined by the amount of labour measured in working hours necessary to
make them (given current levels of technology). Socks sell for less than
cars because it takes fewer hours to make socks than it does cars. In the
same period of time, a person may make many socks but only one car. Smith
and other economists tested this theory by comparing prices of commodities
with the necessary labour time needed to produce them. They found that
while it does not explain the exact price of things, it does explain why
they exchange for thier approximate prices. This theory takes the mystery
out of the concept of value by relating it exchange value to human labour.
Consider the fact that the basis of capitalist economies is surplus value,
that is, the hours of labour beyond what the worker is paid for and is
appropriated by the capitalist. That this is the basis of the wealth of
capitalists. And when we consider what can be done with labour power in
terms of developing priorities, goods and services, we may then consider
possibilities beyond the poor rationality of the marginalists. We might
abandon the superstitious nonesense that the thief of labour as
indespensible and go beyond the tyranny of the twit class.
The neo-classical experiment is on and we are in it. We will see how it
develops.
Archie
>
Archie Kennedy
Chris Delanoy wrote:
Thanks. A thoughtful response. Go to my response to the resident moron.
Archie
ro...@telus.net
<aken...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The reason I raise the question is because we find ourselves in the midst of
>a grand experiment that will undoubtedly have devestating consequences for
>the vast majority. The economic experiment penned by your friends Freidman,
>Mises, and Hayek as well as the French economist Say. .
They had little to do with it.
>There is no doubt that the invisible hand that you marginalists have as a
>basis for economic theory is valid, especially on a micro level. However,
>when we consider the confounding factors of the larger economy, supply and
>demand curves and marginal utility curves simply can't explain much. It is
>superficial and it is 'vulgar economics'. We must go deeper. We must go to
>Ricardo, Smith and for more depth, Marx.
Jevons and Wicksteed exploded the labor theory of value over 100 years
ago. WRT value, it is Smith, Ricardo and Marx who were superficial.
>The notion that the invisible hand will produce what is best for society is
>another question. For example, a given society needs more medicine or
>health care or housing...whatever. The market suggests however that
>nintendos are more profitable. Nintendos will be produced.
You confuse your desires with society's needs.
>The theory that does have far more explaining power is Smith's labour theory
>of value. According to this theory, the exchange value of commodities is
>determined by the amount of labour measured in working hours necessary to
>make them (given current levels of technology). Socks sell for less than
>cars because it takes fewer hours to make socks than it does cars. In the
>same period of time, a person may make many socks but only one car. Smith
>and other economists tested this theory by comparing prices of commodities
>with the necessary labour time needed to produce them. They found that
>while it does not explain the exact price of things, it does explain why
>they exchange for thier approximate prices. This theory takes the mystery
>out of the concept of value by relating it exchange value to human labour.
Nonsense. Smith, Ricardo and Marx had it backwards (a remarkably easy
thing to do in economics). Jevons and Wicksteed explained very
clearly how the marginal amount of labor devoted to production of a
good tends to track its value, not the other way around.
>The neo-classical experiment is on and we are in it. We will see how it
>develops.
While neo-classical economics has made mistakes, marginalism is not
one of them.
-- Roy L
Orestes
A star hockey player or wwf athlete have an absolute usefulness to society of
millions of dollars. I think not.
> >Archie
> >
Orestes
> Archie Kennedy <aken...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3B8A3D55...@hotmail.com...
>
> > So you are suggesting that supply and demand determine the value
> > of a commodity. I agree in as much as supply and demand may
> > explain the exact price a commodity sells for at a given time and
> > place, but it doesn't explain why things have the exchange value
> > that they do. For instance, a new pair of socks always has less
> > value than a new car. It doesn't matter how much the socks are
> > in demand or how small the supply is. The car is always worth
> > more.
>
> Prices are a marginal phenomenon, which means that items like a pair of
> socks or a loaf of bread, which are available in nearly limitless abundance,
> are valued much less than an item like a car or a diamond ring which are
> more unique.
Bad example. Diamonds are actually a pretty common gem stone... that
through ignorance and monopoly marketing conditions are perceived as
being rare.
> When people act on the market, their choices and values are
> not made with respect to general classes of goods, but rather to marginal
> quantities. We purchase a loaf of bread, not a general class of goods
> called "bread" which encompasses all loaves for all time - which is why
> diamonds are far more expensive than bread, despite the feeling one might
> have that the general class "bread" is more valuable to human life than the
> general class "diamonds."
People purchase diamonds for the same reason that they purchase Tommy
Hilfinger shirts, or the latest Britney Spears CD.
> Another factor is input costs. While costs do not govern price (the costs
> themselves BEING a price, it would be absurd to say that "prices are
> determined by prices"), they do govern long-term profitability and provide
> the incentive for people to actually produce the things which are being
> priced. If the demand for cars was such that the price of a car was the
> same as the price of a pair of socks, while the input costs remained similar
> to what they are today, then nobody would ever produce that car. The costs
> don't determine the price of the car, but they do determine whether its
> production is a worthwhile investment.
This is better. Now what governs the price of the input costs.
Hartmann Schaffer
Archie Kennedy <aken...@hotmail.com> writes:
> ...
> I have materialistic value in mind.
i suspect you meant material value. i'm not quite sure what a
materialistic value could be
> So you are suggesting that supply and demand determine the value of a commodity. I agree in as
> much as supply and demand may explain the exact price a commodity sells for at a given time and
> place, but it doesn't explain why things have the exchange value that they do. For instance, a
> new pair of socks always has less value than a new car. It doesn't matter how much the socks are
> in demand or how small the supply is. The car is always worth more.
that should be driven by the base value, i.e. the value under which it
is not worth for the people involved in bringing it to the purchaser
to do so. this would include material cost, labor cost (including
development for some products), and distribution cost. not quite sure
about marketing cost, though they probably should go in there as well
Hartmann Schaffer
Archie Kennedy <aken...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
> Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
>
>> In article <3B89793D...@hotmail.com>,
>> Archie Kennedy <aken...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> > I'm curious about people's beliefs about what is it that determines
>> > value. For instance; why is a shirt worth less than a table
>> > (generally)?
>>
>> do you mean value or price? the latter sometimes has a relation to
>> the former
>
> I'll clarify here. What determines the exchange value of commodities?
supply and demand come to mind (in a really free market). if the
market isn't quite as free as some people in this ng would like us to
believe, things like regulations or the "greed of a monopolist" are
(admittedly poor) substitutes
Honest John
<ch...@propertyrights.net> wrote:
>Prices are a marginal phenomenon, which means that items like a pair of
>socks or a loaf of bread, which are available in nearly limitless abundance,
>are valued much less than an item like a car or a diamond ring which are
>more unique. When people act on the market, their choices and values are
>not made with respect to general classes of goods, but rather to marginal
>quantities. We purchase a loaf of bread, not a general class of goods
>called "bread" which encompasses all loaves for all time - which is why
>diamonds are far more expensive than bread, despite the feeling one might
>have that the general class "bread" is more valuable to human life than the
>general class "diamonds."
>
>Another factor is input costs. While costs do not govern price (the costs
>themselves BEING a price, it would be absurd to say that "prices are
>determined by prices"), they do govern long-term profitability and provide
>the incentive for people to actually produce the things which are being
>priced. If the demand for cars was such that the price of a car was the
>same as the price of a pair of socks, while the input costs remained similar
>to what they are today, then nobody would ever produce that car. The costs
>don't determine the price of the car, but they do determine whether its
>production is a worthwhile investment.
Some items have value because people say they do. Otherwise why would
an old outfit worn by Elvis be worth more than a new car. Why would a
painting by an old master be worth tens of millions while a good
reproduction that looks almost identical be worth but a few dollars?
So some extent the value of the rare item is enhanced because people
feel it's value will go up.
Chris Delanoy
news:tol6j2i...@corp.supernews.com...
> > And besides his buffoonery, "Capitalism and Freedom" is a
> > pretty weak recommendation for answering the question
> > posed in the first place. So even if he wasn't an asshole,
> > he'd still be of little use.
> Do you mean Lambourn or Friedman - or both?
Lambourn. Only.
Chris Delanoy
----------
"Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance
auction in stolen goods."
- H.L. Mencken
Chris Delanoy
--
----------
"Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance
auction in stolen goods."
- H.L. Mencken
Archie Kennedy <aken...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B8ABF59...@hotmail.com...
Chris Delanoy
news:9d318386.0108...@posting.google.com...
> > What we pay for and value something is its absolute usefulness to
> > 'society'. IOW, we pay people and price things exactly to what they
> > are worth.
> A star hockey player or wwf athlete have an absolute usefulness to
> society of millions of dollars. I think not.
Then why is someone able to pay them that much?
Chris Delanoy
Chris Delanoy
> > When people act on the market, their choices and values
> > are not made with respect to general classes of goods, but
> > rather to marginal quantities. We purchase a loaf of bread,
> > not a general class of goods called "bread" which encompasses
> > all loaves for all time - which is why diamonds are far more
> > expensive than bread, despite the feeling one might have that
> > the general class "bread" is more valuable to human life than the
> > general class "diamonds."
> People purchase diamonds for the same reason that they purchase
> Tommy Hilfinger shirts, or the latest Britney Spears CD.
Namely - because they want and value those things. Your own personal
judgment of what people OUGHT to want and value is of little importance.
> > If the demand for cars was such that the price of a car was
> > the same as the price of a pair of socks, while the input costs
> > remained similar to what they are today, then nobody would
> > ever produce that car. The costs don't determine the price
> > of the car, but they do determine whether its production is a
> > worthwhile investment.
> This is better. Now what governs the price of the input costs.
Ultimately, the same valuations of the individual consumers (which means
everybody in the exchange economy) which determine the price of the
first-order consumer goods.
Chris Delanoy
news:3B8ABF59...@hotmail.com...
> The economic experiment penned by your friends Freidman,
> Mises, and Hayek as well as the French economist Say.
> On the question of value, these marginalists have parted company
> with Adam Smith and Ricardo who knew that it was central to
> scientific economic study to understand what determines value.
First, the reference to "these marginalists" is not accurate, since Friedman
and Say are not marginal value (or Austrian) economists. Neither are Smith
or Ricardo. Indeed, the Austrian school generally regards Smith as the
precursor to Marx (something you also point out later in your post), and
have taken it upon themselves to correct his fatal errors which diverted
economics on its fatal Marxist-Keynesian course.
Second, the premise that marginal value economics represents the abandonment
of what determines value is simply not true. Austrian economics have
written volumes that deal with the subject that absolutely dwarf the
mightiest efforts by any Keynesian or Marxist economist, so there is little
point is discussing anything that involves the notion that they've made no
such effort.
> They tackled questions about what it is that encourages wealth
> to grow and what determines it's distribution between classes in
> society.
Wealth is -produced-, not "distributed."
> They saw an objective measure of value as a precondition for coming
> to terms with these problems.
And they were wrong. The attempt to ascribe intrinsic value to things
in-and-of-themselves is a failure, precisely because something can only be
of value by being of value TO someone. Without the thinking, acting,
VALUING being, there can be no value to speak of. You can not remove the
human from the study of human action and interaction (ie - economics.)
> There is no doubt that the invisible hand that you marginalists have
> as a basis for economic theory is valid, especially on a micro level.
There is no reliance on (the non-Austrian, proto-Marxist) Smith's "invisible
hand" by marginalists. To the contrary, the proper grounding of value in
the actions of thinking, acting individuals is the furthest possible thing
from the sort of mysticism that entails such concepts as "intrinsic" value
or "society" as something other than the individuals which comprise it.
> However, when we consider the confounding factors of the larger
> economy, supply and demand curves and marginal utility curves
> simply can't explain much.
There is nothing "confounding" about a larger economy. How could there be,
when a "larger" economy simply means more individuals acting together in a
greater number of ways?
> For example, a given society needs more medicine or health care
> or housing...whatever. The market suggests however that nintendos
> are more profitable. Nintendos will be produced.
Again, the problem is that you're attempting to ascribe value to a general
class of goods (ie - all "health care" as against all "Nintendos"), when in
fact no such classes exist in the realm of human action.
> Besides, it could be argued that defence spending has done more
> for the health of capitalism in the 20th century than Keynes policies.
Government spending of any kind is quite detrimental to the health of an
economy (and to our liberty), so no, I don't think much of an argument can
be made for your point.
> The theory that does have far more explaining power is Smith's
> labour theory of value. According to this theory, the exchange
> value of commodities is determined by the amount of labour
> measured in working hours necessary to make them (given
> current levels of technology).
The labor theory of value is farcical on the face of it. The notion that a
giant pit dug entirely by hand over the court of weeks is inherently more
"valuable" than one dug in a few hours by machine is absurd. The number of
similar illustrations of the ridiculously of this theory are probably
limitless.
The very basis of an exchange economy is that things are valued differently
by the exchanging individuals. If I trade $1 for a carton of milk at the
supermarket, it is a fallacy to say (as the labor theory or any other theory
of intrinsic value would hold) that there is some equality in the value of
the $1 bill and the carton of milk. To the contrary, the fact that the
exchange occurred means that I valued the carton of milk MORE than the $1
bill, and that the supermarket owner valued the $1 bill MORE than the milk.
There is no equating these valuations, because one can not combine or
compare the value of milk TO ME to the value of the $1 bill TO HIM. We, the
valuing beings, can not be cast aside in the pursuit of some intrinsic
value, because to fail to be of value TO someone means to fail to be of
value, period.
Value is the result of preference. Preferring always means to love or to
desire a more than b. Just as there is no standard and no measurement of
sexual love, of friendship and sympathy, and of aesthetic enjoyment, so
there is no measurement of the value of commodities apart from he who
values.
> Consider the fact that the basis of capitalist economies is surplus value,
The "surplus value" and "expropriation" myths are neither facts nor a basis
of anything, so there's little to consider.
Orestes
> Orestes <think...@dlcwest.com> wrote in message
> news:9d318386.0108...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > What we pay for and value something is its absolute usefulness to
> > > 'society'. IOW, we pay people and price things exactly to what they
> > > are worth.
>
> > A star hockey player or wwf athlete have an absolute usefulness to
> > society of millions of dollars. I think not.
>
> Then why is someone able to pay them that much?
>
> Chris Delanoy
If the sports had never been invented, no one would miss them. A great
benefit to mankind they aren't. IPOF, they perform the "circus
function," one of the two basics that the Roman rulers found must be
provided to the underclasses in order to maintain political stability,
the other one being of course "bread."
Orestes
> Orestes <think...@dlcwest.com> wrote in message
> news:9d318386.01082...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > When people act on the market, their choices and values
> > > are not made with respect to general classes of goods, but
> > > rather to marginal quantities. We purchase a loaf of bread,
> > > not a general class of goods called "bread" which encompasses
> > > all loaves for all time - which is why diamonds are far more
> > > expensive than bread, despite the feeling one might have that
> > > the general class "bread" is more valuable to human life than the
> > > general class "diamonds."
>
> > People purchase diamonds for the same reason that they purchase
> > Tommy Hilfinger shirts, or the latest Britney Spears CD.
>
> Namely - because they want and value those things. Your own personal
> judgment of what people OUGHT to want and value is of little importance.
As P.T. Barnum put it, "there is a sucker born every minute." People
may want and value those things, but the valuation they place on them
is based upon their ignorance and stupidity. Fortunately for Debeers,
and Mr. Hilfinger, they have managed to carve out their market of
suckers.
> > > If the demand for cars was such that the price of a car was
> > > the same as the price of a pair of socks, while the input costs
> > > remained similar to what they are today, then nobody would
> > > ever produce that car. The costs don't determine the price
> > > of the car, but they do determine whether its production is a
> > > worthwhile investment.
>
> > This is better. Now what governs the price of the input costs.
>
> Ultimately, the same valuations of the individual consumers (which means
> everybody in the exchange economy) which determine the price of the
> first-order consumer goods.
Are you actually trying to say there is no intrinsic value in
commodities?
Chris Delanoy
news:9d318386.01082...@posting.google.com...
> > Namely - because they want and value those things. Your
> > own personal judgment of what people OUGHT to want
> > and value is of little importance.
> As P.T. Barnum put it, "there is a sucker born every minute." People
> may want and value those things, but the valuation they place on them
> is based upon their ignorance and stupidity.
Maybe so, but it's still entirely their business, not yours. Regardless of
what you think of it, these things are of value to them. You're free to
criticize them or to try to persuade them to value something else. But you
have no right to force them to accept the values that you believe they ought
to hold.
> > Ultimately, the same valuations of the individual consumers (which
> > means everybody in the exchange economy) which determine the
> > price of the first-order consumer goods.
> Are you actually trying to say there is no intrinsic value in
> commodities?
No value exists independently of a valuer. To be of value necessarily means
to be of value TO someone. There is nothing in the nature of matter qua
matter which somehow endows it with value apart from the value it has TO
someone.
What good is a commodity which is of no use to anyone? Indeed, how can some
hunk of matter even be considered a "commodity" if it is of use to nobody?
Chris Delanoy
-----
"On the free market, everyone earns according to his productive value in
satisfying consumer desires. Under statist distribution, everyone earns in
proportion to the amount he can plunder from the producers."
- Murray N. Rothbard
SunnyJim
wrote:
>"Chris Delanoy" <ch...@propertyrights.net> wrote in message news:<XLFi7.98533$b_3.12...@news0.telusplanet.net>...
>> Orestes <think...@dlcwest.com> wrote in message
>> news:9d318386.01082...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> > > When people act on the market, their choices and values
>> > > are not made with respect to general classes of goods, but
>> > > rather to marginal quantities. We purchase a loaf of bread,
>> > > not a general class of goods called "bread" which encompasses
>> > > all loaves for all time - which is why diamonds are far more
>> > > expensive than bread, despite the feeling one might have that
>> > > the general class "bread" is more valuable to human life than the
>> > > general class "diamonds."
>>
>> > People purchase diamonds for the same reason that they purchase
>> > Tommy Hilfinger shirts, or the latest Britney Spears CD.
>>
>> Namely - because they want and value those things. Your own personal
>> judgment of what people OUGHT to want and value is of little importance.
>
>As P.T. Barnum put it, "there is a sucker born every minute." People
>may want and value those things, but the valuation they place on them
>is based upon their ignorance and stupidity. Fortunately for Debeers,
>and Mr. Hilfinger, they have managed to carve out their market of
>suckers.
Do you then consider that every purchasing decision you make is either
perfectly rational or perfectly stupid?
A producer can create a demand up to a point. The point stops when the
product goes out of fashion (de Beers) or becomes too expensive (any
of a thousand products) and is replaced by something cheaper. If a
product has no use in a market it will not be purchased. Simple
enough.
And of course we only pay what we think the product is worth. If
someone is trying to sell you a rock for $1 and you believe that you
can either get it elsewhere for less you are free to look. And if all
or the closest sellers have the same price you could decide to forgoe
using rocks or possibly enter the market yourself and try to capture
that part of the market that will pay say 90 cents for a rock.
SunnyJim
wrote:
>"Chris Delanoy" <ch...@propertyrights.net> wrote in message news:<HIEi7.98515$b_3.12...@news0.telusplanet.net>...
>> Orestes <think...@dlcwest.com> wrote in message
>> news:9d318386.0108...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> > > What we pay for and value something is its absolute usefulness to
>> > > 'society'. IOW, we pay people and price things exactly to what they
>> > > are worth.
>>
>> > A star hockey player or wwf athlete have an absolute usefulness to
>> > society of millions of dollars. I think not.
>>
>> Then why is someone able to pay them that much?
>>
>> Chris Delanoy
>
>If the sports had never been invented, no one would miss them. A great
>benefit to mankind they aren't. IPOF, they perform the "circus
>function," one of the two basics that the Roman rulers found must be
>provided to the underclasses in order to maintain political stability,
>the other one being of course "bread."
Sports has replaced the hunter function in society. Humans are
innately competitive and will engage in some kind of sport. And
business is certainly a sport.
And they do certainly benefit mankind. If they did not, we would not
engage in the activity. Sports are a great benefit because they
provide a group for the individual to adhere to and become part of a
greater thing.
francispoon
> francispoon wrote:
>
> > Archie Kennedy <aken...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3B89793D...@hotmail.com>...
> > > I'm curious about people's beliefs about what is it that determines
> > > value.
> >
> >
> > For instance; why is a shirt worth less than a table
> > > (generally)?
> > >
> > Not sure about the rest.
>
> I have materialistic value in mind.
>
> much as supply and demand may explain the exact price a commodity sells for at a given time and
> place, but it doesn't explain why things have the exchange value that they do. For instance, a
> new pair of socks always has less value than a new car. It doesn't matter how much the socks are
> in demand or how small the supply is. The car is always worth more.
It is due to the fact that socks have substitutes that are readily and
cheaply available while cars don't.
FP
>
> Archie
Archie Kennedy
> and Say are not marginal value (or Austrian) economists. Neither are Smith
> or Ricardo. Indeed, the Austrian school generally regards Smith as the
> precursor to Marx (something you also point out later in your post), and
> have taken it upon themselves to correct his fatal errors which diverted
> economics on its fatal Marxist-Keynesian course.
French economist Say said that the extra value of goods produced over and above
material costs equal wages and profit to capitalists. Total amount in people's
pockets from wages and profits must be exactly the same as the amount needed to
buy all goods produced. The marginalists use his idea as cornerstone to their
beliefs. Say wasn't a meaginalist but you are splitting hairs. And as you
suggested, I didn't say that Ricardo or Smith were marginalists. You however,
lump Keynes and Marx together. Either one of them would spit in your face for
it, if Marx had read Keynes. You can't connect the two in any way. Keynes was
intensely pro capitalist.
>
>
> Second, the premise that marginal value economics represents the abandonment
> of what determines value is simply not true. Austrian economics have
> written volumes that deal with the subject that absolutely dwarf the
> mightiest efforts by any Keynesian or Marxist economist, so there is little
> point is discussing anything that involves the notion that they've made no
> such effort.
Yes. The marginalists have written volumes of bullshit. Their fundamental
premises stand on shit. The marginalists make their ideas fit the already
assumed conclusion that unfettered capitalism will have society running like a
top. They write a lot all right. However, quantity doesn't impress. Quality
is another matter.
Cars start out as rocks. They are transformed to cars through the efforts and
skill of miners, truck drivers, engineers, assembly line workers and so on. It
is their labour that moves ore from the earth to the point where you are riding
it down the highway. And you claim that labour has no value.
By the way, I don't entertain arguments that claim'my guy is smarter than your
guy. Browse this ng and notice this goes nowhere.
> Wealth is -produced-, not "distributed."
Wealth is produced, is created, through work. Wealth is also distributed.
Otherwise, there would be no economy.
> And they were wrong. The attempt to ascribe intrinsic value to things
> in-and-of-themselves is a failure, precisely because something can only be
> of value by being of value TO someone. Without the thinking, acting,
> VALUING being, there can be no value to speak of. You can not remove the
> human from the study of human action and interaction (ie - economics.)
Strange statements from somebody I thought was an objectivist. Capitalism
objectifies all commodities, necessarily, including labour. It is the
objectification of worker's labour that is the very basis of capitalism.
> > There is no doubt that the invisible hand that you marginalists have
> > as a basis for economic theory is valid, especially on a micro level.
>
> There is no reliance on (the non-Austrian, proto-Marxist) Smith's "invisible
> hand" by marginalists. To the contrary, the proper grounding of value in
> the actions of thinking, acting individuals is the furthest possible thing
> from the sort of mysticism that entails such concepts as "intrinsic" value
> or "society" as something other than the individuals which comprise it.
I've heard this from you before. 'There is no society. There are only
individuals.' It is precisely that kind of refutation of lucidity that
marginalists base their political economy on. Intentionally not looking at
reality directly.
> There is nothing "confounding" about a larger economy. How could there be,
> when a "larger" economy simply means more individuals acting together in a
> greater number of ways?
The fact that any two micro economies are different make confounding variables
abound. Then there is trade from nation to nation with various nations using
various interest rates, different currency and so on. Economics is a little
more complex than you merginalists would like to believe.
> Again, the problem is that you're attempting to ascribe value to a general
> class of goods (ie - all "health care" as against all "Nintendos"), when in
> fact no such classes exist in the realm of human action.
Bullshit.
> Government spending of any kind is quite detrimental to the health of an
> economy (and to our liberty), so no, I don't think much of an argument can
> be made for your point.
Government spending has been the saviour of capitalism whether it has been
defense spending or Keynsian policies. You have absolutely no argument here.
> The labor theory of value is farcical on the face of it. The notion that a
> giant pit dug entirely by hand over the court of weeks is inherently more
> "valuable" than one dug in a few hours by machine is absurd. The number of
> similar illustrations of the ridiculously of this theory are probably
> limitless.
>
> The very basis of an exchange economy is that things are valued differently
> by the exchanging individuals. If I trade $1 for a carton of milk at the
> supermarket, it is a fallacy to say (as the labor theory or any other theory
> of intrinsic value would hold) that there is some equality in the value of
> the $1 bill and the carton of milk. To the contrary, the fact that the
> exchange occurred means that I valued the carton of milk MORE than the $1
> bill, and that the supermarket owner valued the $1 bill MORE than the milk.
> There is no equating these valuations, because one can not combine or
> compare the value of milk TO ME to the value of the $1 bill TO HIM. We, the
> valuing beings, can not be cast aside in the pursuit of some intrinsic
> value, because to fail to be of value TO someone means to fail to be of
> value, period.
>
> Value is the result of preference. Preferring always means to love or to
> desire a more than b. Just as there is no standard and no measurement of
> sexual love, of friendship and sympathy, and of aesthetic enjoyment, so
> there is no measurement of the value of commodities apart from he who
> values.
Anything can be measured. The economy should be measured.
As far as value goes, you should really read Marx. Make the distinction between
use value and exchange value. As Marx said, through exchange value, commodities
take on a life of their own. The difference between the two may be essentially
abstract, but the whole economy is based on abstractions. It is based on
exchange value. Sorry, I don't have the time to explain this to you.
> > Consider the fact that the basis of capitalist economies is surplus value,
>
> The "surplus value" and "expropriation" myths are neither facts nor a basis
> of anything, so there's little to consider.
You deny that there is any such thing as surplus value. Okay. Let's pick up
this argument later. I'll explain some of this to you. As I said, time is in
short supply for me at the moment.
Archie
Chris Delanoy
> French economist Say said that the extra value of goods produced
> over and above material costs equal wages and profit to capitalists.
> Total amount in people's pockets from wages and profits must be
> exactly the same as the amount needed to buy all goods produced.
With wealth being continually created, the notion of an economy as some kind
of giant balance sheet where every gain has an equal loss or where there are
"exactly the same" amounts of any kind is entirely untenable.
> The marginalists use his idea as cornerstone to their beliefs.
The cornerstone of Austrian economics is the fact of man as a rational,
acting being.
> Keynes was intensely pro capitalist.
Ha! If you want people to take you seriously rather than think you're
trying to pull off a lame comedy routine, you'll have to do better than a
lark like this, Archie.
> Cars start out as rocks. They are transformed to cars through
> the efforts and skill of miners, truck drivers, engineers, assembly
> line workers and so on.
Certainly.
> And you claim that labour has no value.
Who ever claimed that? Of course labor has value - if it didn't, nobody
would ever pay to have any done.
What was refuted was the completely absurd notion that the value of some
object is somehow related to the raw number of hours used to produce it.
(Which, if true, would lead to such farcical conclusions as that, all else
being equal, slow and inefficient workers will produce things of higher
value than productive and efficient workers.) You should read what's being
said, Archie, rather than blurting out such nonsense as the statement that I
claimed that labor has no value (which I never did.)
> > Wealth is -produced-, not "distributed."
> Wealth is produced, is created, through work. Wealth is also
> distributed.
There is no "distribution" of wealth, at least not in any other sense than
the superficial (and absurd) one that would describe all wealth at point of
creation as being somehow "distributed" to the creator from nature.
The concept of "distribution" necessarily implies that existence of a
distributor to whom all wealth would have belonged before. And there isn't
one.
> > And they were wrong. The attempt to ascribe intrinsic value
> > to things in-and-of-themselves is a failure, precisely because
> > something can only be of value by being of value TO someone.
> > Without the thinking, acting, VALUING being, there can be no
> > value to speak of. You can not remove the human from the
> > study of human action and interaction (ie - economics.)
> Strange statements from somebody I thought was an objectivist.
To the contrary, the fact of man as possessor and trader of values is
central to objectivism. There's nothing even remotely strange about my
statements in that context.
> Capitalism objectifies all commodities, necessarily, including
> labour.
You're employing this terminology in a completely sloppy manner. If you
mean that labor is priced, then you should say so. And then you should say
why we should be so alarmed by this fairly bland and straight-forward fact.
> I've heard this from you before. 'There is no society.
No, not as anything other than a collection of individuals, there isn't.
There is no giant blob of matter called "society," Archie. There is no
giant brain or giant hand that thinks or acts collectively. There is no
action divorced from an actor, and no "macro" economy that somehow exists
and operates independently of acting human beings. Saying that I'm not
looking at reality directly is a farcical inversion of our discussion -
because looking around and seeing human beings as they are is precisely what
I'm doing.
> The fact that any two micro economies are different make
> confounding variables abound.
There is nothing confounding about differing "micro economies." The fact
that Fred and Ted trade bread for potatoes while Bill and Gil trade milk for
eggs isn't at all confounding or problematic. Whether you're dealing with
these two "micro" economies or a billion different ones as well, there is
still nothing in principle different about what we're dealing with. All of
economic theory - the profit-and-loss system, the establishment of prices at
every level of production (including wages and interest), the introduction
of money, and everything else - can (and must) be deduced from individual
human action.
> Then there is trade from nation to nation with various nations using
> various interest rates, different currency and so on.
Artificial political boundaries have no economic significance when the
people enclosed within them aren't subject to government control and
coercion (ie - government-forced interest rates, government-forced currency,
etc.) that distorts and restricts their actions. A trade between you and a
man in Siberia is no different than a trade between you and the man next
door - unless some criminal third party (the state) uses force to make it
different.
The existence of some thug who will bash you over the head with a club if
you trade with someone who lives outside the artificial boundaries he sets
is of no significance in considering the operation of a free society.
> Economics is a little more complex than you merginalists would like
> to believe.
Complexity is in the eye of the beholder. And while the details and
derivations one might make in completing one's analysis of a free society
can certainly increase in complexity, the fact remains that the foundation
of economics (ALL economics) is as simple as can be.
> > Again, the problem is that you're attempting to ascribe value to a
> > general class of goods (ie - all "health care" as against all
"Nintendos"),
> > when in fact no such classes exist in the realm of human action.
> Bullshit.
Brilliant. But hardly a response to the fact presented: that there is no
such category as "all bread" or "all Nintendos" that humans must choose or
act upon. As such, regardless of the "value to mankind" you might
personally believe exists in the fictitious object called "all bread for all
time," that value has no significance to how you act and live every day.
> > Government spending of any kind is quite detrimental to the health
> > of an economy (and to our liberty), so no, I don't think much of an
> > argument can be made for your point.
> Government spending has been the saviour of capitalism
Again, this simply isn't so. Government "spending" is necessarily preceded
by government stealing - and the notion that the theft and subsequent
mismanagement of nearly half of all productive wealth is somehow "good" for
those who were robbed is a grim insult at best.
> > Value is the result of preference. Preferring always means to love or
to
> > desire a more than b. Just as there is no standard and no measurement of
> > sexual love, of friendship and sympathy, and of aesthetic enjoyment, so
> > there is no measurement of the value of commodities apart from he who
> > values.
> Anything can be measured.
Total nonsense. I just provided a list of many things - love, friendship,
sympathy, and VALUE - which can't be measured. How much more do you love
your wife than you love me? Five times? Twelve times? Thirty-seven point
four times more? One plus pi to the power of six times? The absurdity of
even speaking in such terms is palpable, Archie. There is no quantitative
measure of your qualitatively greater feelings for her.
> The economy should be measured.
"The economy" can't be.
> Make the distinction between use value and exchange value.
This distinction is irrelevant insofar as value is always personal and
individual. If you want to artificially divide your own values into what
you perceive as "exchange" value and "use" value, then feel free - but
recognize that despite whatever semantics you put on them, there are no real
divisions between the values that impel you to act or not act.
> As Marx said, through exchange value, commodities take on a life of their
> own.
If you're trying to differentiate between price and value, then you should
use the correct terminology. (But either way, there is no "life of their
own" of commodities with respect to either their price or their value to
someone in particular. Value does not exist apart from a value holder, like
love does not exist apart from a lover or thought does not exist apart from
a thinker.)
> > The "surplus value" and "expropriation" myths are neither facts nor
> > a basis of anything, so there's little to consider.
> You deny that there is any such thing as surplus value.
Your entire notion of "inherent" value (or "use" value, or whatever) has
been repeatedly shown to be fallacious, Archie. As I explained earlier, the
entire basis of an exchange economy (ie - civilization) is that differing
individuals hold differing values and are therefore able to trade to -mutual
advantage-. When I exchange a $1 bill for a carton of milk, it can not be
said that these things are of equal value; to the contrary, the very
existence of the trade is evidence of an inequality of values - with me
valuing the milk more than the dollar and the seller valuing the dollar more
than the milk. This is why we are -both- satisfying our values in the
trade, and why -everybody- is able to satisfy their values by trading with
one another in a state of complete liberty.
Chris Delanoy
-----
"No more tyrannical principle was ever avowed than that the will of majority
ought to have the force of law without regard to its justice."
- Lysander Spooner
Orestes
> On 28 Aug 2001 07:26:51 -0700, think...@dlcwest.com (Orestes)
> wrote:
>
> >"Chris Delanoy" <ch...@propertyrights.net> wrote in message news:<HIEi7.98515$b_3.12...@news0.telusplanet.net>...
> >> Orestes <think...@dlcwest.com> wrote in message
> >> news:9d318386.0108...@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >> > > What we pay for and value something is its absolute usefulness to
> >> > > 'society'. IOW, we pay people and price things exactly to what they
> >> > > are worth.
>
> >> > A star hockey player or wwf athlete have an absolute usefulness to
> >> > society of millions of dollars. I think not.
> >>
> >> Then why is someone able to pay them that much?
> >>
> >> Chris Delanoy
> >If the sports had never been invented, no one would miss them. A great
> >benefit to mankind they aren't. IPOF, they perform the "circus
> >function," one of the two basics that the Roman rulers found must be
> >provided to the underclasses in order to maintain political stability,
> >the other one being of course "bread."
> Sports has replaced the hunter function in society. Humans are
> innately competitive and will engage in some kind of sport. And
> business is certainly a sport.
You missed the point. If hockey or the WWF hadn't been invented,
we'd all be playing soccer or some other sport that was invented.
> And they do certainly benefit mankind.
They benefit those who engage in them by helping these individuals
stay fit, and they benefit the rulers who use them to help keep the
peasants passified, but they provide no tangible benefit to the
peasants other than "entertainment value," something
>If they did not, we would not engage in the activity. Sports are a
great >benefit because they provide a group for the individual to
adhere to and >become part of a greater thing.
Participating in a sport is a great benefit to your health - generally
speaking. Cheering for some particular team is of no value at all.
The wages and salaries the players receive are a function of the
control of the mass media, indeed its very existence, in our society,
the distribution of wealth an power in the society, and the ability of
organizations to bargain collectively, not a function of their value
to society writ large.
Hence your theory on the basis of value disappears in a puff of smoke.
;-(
SunnyJim
wrote:
>su...@wiggly.com (SunnyJim) wrote in message news:<3b8bee34....@news.gv.shawcable.net>...
>> On 28 Aug 2001 07:26:51 -0700, think...@dlcwest.com (Orestes)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Chris Delanoy" <ch...@propertyrights.net> wrote in message news:<HIEi7.98515$b_3.12...@news0.telusplanet.net>...
>> >> Orestes <think...@dlcwest.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:9d318386.0108...@posting.google.com...
>> >>
>> >> > > What we pay for and value something is its absolute usefulness to
>> >> > > 'society'. IOW, we pay people and price things exactly to what they
>> >> > > are worth.
>>
>> >> > A star hockey player or wwf athlete have an absolute usefulness to
>> >> > society of millions of dollars. I think not.
>> >>
>> >> Then why is someone able to pay them that much?
>> >>
>> >> Chris Delanoy
>
>> >If the sports had never been invented, no one would miss them. A great
>> >benefit to mankind they aren't. IPOF, they perform the "circus
>> >function," one of the two basics that the Roman rulers found must be
>> >provided to the underclasses in order to maintain political stability,
>> >the other one being of course "bread."
>
>> Sports has replaced the hunter function in society. Humans are
>> innately competitive and will engage in some kind of sport. And
>> business is certainly a sport.
>
>You missed the point. If hockey or the WWF hadn't been invented,
>we'd all be playing soccer or some other sport that was invented.
I did not miss the point. Saying 'if WWF (or anything else for that
matter) had not been invented...' is meaningless. It has and is part
of the landscape. Soccer is no different than any other sport that
pits man against man. Chess or other cerebreal efforts do not attract
the kind of attention that physical endeavors do because we are still
all very physically oriented. Until we are all strapped into chairs,
coding or pushing buttons for a living, we will follow some sport.
Even that freakin' Taleban support soccer. Only soccer though.
>
>> And they do certainly benefit mankind.
>
>They benefit those who engage in them by helping these individuals
>stay fit, and they benefit the rulers who use them to help keep the
>peasants passified, but they provide no tangible benefit to the
>peasants other than "entertainment value," something
They give us something to do or look forward to watching. If there was
no tangible benefit than the 'thing' would not be done. We do things
only for benefit, either tangible or concrete, it makes no difference.
>
>>If they did not, we would not engage in the activity. Sports are a
>great >benefit because they provide a group for the individual to
>adhere to and >become part of a greater thing.
>
>Participating in a sport is a great benefit to your health - generally
>speaking. Cheering for some particular team is of no value at all.
No, it helps us/some to become part of a bigger thing. That is the
whole point: tribalism. Tribalism and nationalism are identical. It is
just a matter of size.
>
>The wages and salaries the players receive are a function of the
>control of the mass media, indeed its very existence, in our society,
>the distribution of wealth an power in the society, and the ability of
>organizations to bargain collectively, not a function of their value
>to society writ large.
We pay them for what they are worth in society. No media outlet can
perpetuate a lie that WWF is interesting. Either it is and it stays
profitable or it does not and goes away, like XFL.
>
>Hence your theory on the basis of value disappears in a puff of smoke.
>;-(
No, it remains. If a thing was not valued then it would not be done.
Solid, not smokey.