Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Value?

Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 7:17:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I find it pretty funny how we cannot come to consensus regarding the simplest of all definitions. Let's take value, for example. The above video tries to start with the most basic of all the economic concepts. I find the video ludicrous.

Please view the video before proceeding.

The problem I have with the video is the one Marx actually addressed in one of his footnotes in Capital, volume 1. Dr. Pirie tries to address the topic superficially, in a way that we can't actually refute what he said, but he approaches the question in a way which actually vulgarizes economics (to use the Marxian terminology).

For example, He doesn't try to explain WHY the value is in our mind, of course the value is in our mind (it isn't a concrete concept, after all). it just explains what it is. It shoots down one of the only credible research on the subject without even bothering to read up on the critique.

What do you think value is?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 1:26:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Value is the equilibrium between the consumer and the producer.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 4:45:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 1:26:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Value is the equilibrium between the consumer and the producer.

That... is a new one. Can you please elaborate?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 5:40:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 1:26:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Value is the dynamic equilibrium between the consumer and the producer.

That needs to probably be in to account for leverage. However, it still causes problem seeing as, if I can just take stuff, the value doesn't now become "zero" because the equilibrium is fully in my favour.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 6:27:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 5:40:34 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/31/2012 1:26:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Value is the dynamic equilibrium between the consumer and the producer.

That needs to probably be in to account for leverage. However, it still causes problem seeing as, if I can just take stuff, the value doesn't now become "zero" because the equilibrium is fully in my favour.

Oh, you're both talking about price. Price doesn't necessarily equate to the value placed on the object.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 6:38:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 6:27:08 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/1/2012 5:40:34 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/31/2012 1:26:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Value is the dynamic equilibrium between the consumer and the producer.

That needs to probably be in to account for leverage. However, it still causes problem seeing as, if I can just take stuff, the value doesn't now become "zero" because the equilibrium is fully in my favour.

Oh, you're both talking about price. Price doesn't necessarily equate to the value placed on the object.

Or rather, price reflects the value placed on the object. You're approaching the problem backwards.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:23:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 7:17:22 AM, Cermank wrote:


I find it pretty funny how we cannot come to consensus regarding the simplest of all definitions. Let's take value, for example. The above video tries to start with the most basic of all the economic concepts. I find the video ludicrous.

Please view the video before proceeding.

The problem I have with the video is the one Marx actually addressed in one of his footnotes in Capital, volume 1. Dr. Pirie tries to address the topic superficially, in a way that we can't actually refute what he said, but he approaches the question in a way which actually vulgarizes economics (to use the Marxian terminology).

For example, He doesn't try to explain WHY the value is in our mind, of course the value is in our mind (it isn't a concrete concept, after all). it just explains what it is. It shoots down one of the only credible research on the subject without even bothering to read up on the critique.

What do you think value is?

Of course, the whole purpose of the video was to explain what value is. Its just defining it? What's your problem. In terms of trying to figure out "why" people value things, that would require psychology and behavior analysis, and would be a complex task since there are so many things and so many people.

If you ask "why" for everything, you just get into ad infinite regression problem in which one can't explain the "why".
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 11:07:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:23:08 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/31/2012 7:17:22 AM, Cermank wrote:

I find it pretty funny how we cannot come to consensus regarding the simplest of all definitions. Let's take value, for example. The above video tries to start with the most basic of all the economic concepts. I find the video ludicrous.

Please view the video before proceeding.

The problem I have with the video is the one Marx actually addressed in one of his footnotes in Capital, volume 1. Dr. Pirie tries to address the topic superficially, in a way that we can't actually refute what he said, but he approaches the question in a way which actually vulgarizes economics (to use the Marxian terminology).

For example, He doesn't try to explain WHY the value is in our mind, of course the value is in our mind (it isn't a concrete concept, after all). it just explains what it is. It shoots down one of the only credible research on the subject without even bothering to read up on the critique.

What do you think value is?

Of course, the whole purpose of the video was to explain what value is. Its just defining it? What's your problem. In terms of trying to figure out "why" people value things, that would require psychology and behavior analysis, and would be a complex task since there are so many things and so many people.

If you ask "why" for everything, you just get into ad infinite regression problem in which one can't explain the "why".

My problem is that he's defining it inadequately, making the definition almost false. Value exists inside the brain because there is some form of utility in an object. The utility that gives it an exchange value. Value is not something that a human mind arbitrarily assigns to any object. He's misrepresenting the nature of value when he says that we do not need to ask WHY an object gets its value. We do. We need to, if we are to understand the basics of the capitalist system.

I cannot argue that it exists in our mind, because it does. But it exists BECAUSE the object has some form of utility, thus it is not an abstract yardstick subjective to individual whims.

Then he goes on to say that asking why an object gets it's value was a mistake Karl Marx made, and then mis-stated the conclusion Marx came to. Marx equated the value of a commodity to 'socially acceptable labour time', which is distinctly different from labour time (which he claims Marx claimed). It was Ricardo who said that and Marx actually discredited his claim. So, apart from being wrong, he is misinformed too.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 11:53:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 11:07:26 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:23:08 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/31/2012 7:17:22 AM, Cermank wrote:

I find it pretty funny how we cannot come to consensus regarding the simplest of all definitions. Let's take value, for example. The above video tries to start with the most basic of all the economic concepts. I find the video ludicrous.

Please view the video before proceeding.

The problem I have with the video is the one Marx actually addressed in one of his footnotes in Capital, volume 1. Dr. Pirie tries to address the topic superficially, in a way that we can't actually refute what he said, but he approaches the question in a way which actually vulgarizes economics (to use the Marxian terminology).

For example, He doesn't try to explain WHY the value is in our mind, of course the value is in our mind (it isn't a concrete concept, after all). it just explains what it is. It shoots down one of the only credible research on the subject without even bothering to read up on the critique.

What do you think value is?

Of course, the whole purpose of the video was to explain what value is. Its just defining it? What's your problem. In terms of trying to figure out "why" people value things, that would require psychology and behavior analysis, and would be a complex task since there are so many things and so many people.

If you ask "why" for everything, you just get into ad infinite regression problem in which one can't explain the "why".

My problem is that he's defining it inadequately, making the definition almost false. Value exists inside the brain because there is some form of utility in an object.

Agreed.

The utility that gives it an exchange value. Value is not something that a human mind arbitrarily assigns to any object.

But how much utility someone gets from an object is subjective, differs from person to person and exists in the mind. I get utility from DDO from my mind. Others do not. Some get different levels then me.

He's misrepresenting the nature of value when he says that we do not need to ask WHY an object gets its value. We do. We need to, if we are to understand the basics of the capitalist system.

The reason why an object gets its value is because we assign it value based on our subjective preferences. Why we have these subjective preferences are psychology and behaviorly related which is different for each good.

I cannot argue that it exists in our mind, because it does. But it exists BECAUSE the object has some form of utility, thus it is not an abstract yardstick subjective to individual whims.

Utility and subjective yardstrick are not mutually exclusive. Utility is also subjective from person to person.

Then he goes on to say that asking why an object gets it's value was a mistake Karl Marx made, and then mis-stated the conclusion Marx came to. Marx equated the value of a commodity to 'socially acceptable labour time', which is distinctly different from labour time (which he claims Marx claimed).

The concepts are close enough. The only difference is that:
a) you've made the concept more complex because now you have to state what "socially acceptable" means and what "labor time" means.

You've never explained why "socially acceptable labour time" is better than the definition he gave above, because you concede that his definition is right. But your critisim is he doesn't explain why it is derived value, even though you believe the definition is true. However, stating that value = "socially aceeptable labor time" is a definition, not an explanation of why something derives value. You don't need to answer the "why" to define something, and you haven't answered the "why" either.

It was Ricardo who said that and Marx actually discredited his claim. So, apart from being wrong, he is misinformed too.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 3:52:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 11:53:11 AM, darkkermit wrote:

My problem is that he's defining it inadequately, making the definition almost false. Value exists inside the brain because there is some form of utility in an object.

Agreed.

The utility that gives it an exchange value. Value is not something that a human mind arbitrarily assigns to any object.

But how much utility someone gets from an object is subjective, differs from person to person and exists in the mind. I get utility from DDO from my mind. Others do not. Some get different levels then me.

Levels of utility is again a vague term. The value of a commodity would not depend on the utility. Utility gives the object a use value; however in an exchange- what matters is the intrinsic value of the commodity. If you want to buy DDO in exchange for a car, for example, the utility of DDO would be more than that of the car for you, obviously, but the exchange would occur only if the car and DDO have some intrinsic value associated with it. The utility might vary a lot, but what would not vary is the socially acceptable labour time expended on it, hence giving it its value. Value is not subjective, utility derived is.

He's misrepresenting the nature of value when he says that we do not need to ask WHY an object gets its value. We do. We need to, if we are to understand the basics of the capitalist system.

The reason why an object gets its value is because we assign it value based on our subjective preferences. Why we have these subjective preferences are psychology and behaviorly related which is different for each good.

I cannot argue that it exists in our mind, because it does. But it exists BECAUSE the object has some form of utility, thus it is not an abstract yardstick subjective to individual whims.

Utility and subjective yardstrick are not mutually exclusive. Utility is also subjective from person to person.
Yes, exchange occurs because of differing utilities.


Then he goes on to say that asking why an object gets it's value was a mistake Karl Marx made, and then mis-stated the conclusion Marx came to. Marx equated the value of a commodity to 'socially acceptable labour time', which is distinctly different from labour time (which he claims Marx claimed).

The concepts are close enough. The only difference is that:
a) you've made the concept more complex because now you have to state what "socially acceptable" means and what "labor time" means.

No it's not. If we equate value of a commodity to labour time, that would basically mean that the value of a product would be the util equivalent of the time expended on the commodity by a labourer. Which would mean that the value of a commodity would increase the more lazier the labourer producing the product is, which is obviously false. Also, it would mean that regardless of the social acceptability of the product manufactured, it would have some value, which is again pretty absurd. (Incidently, this is the reasoning Dr. Pirie used to shoot down this 'Marxian belief', even though it was first Marx who first shot down this belief, which is Ricardian, not Marxian).

When we say that value is equal to socially acceptable labour time, we focus on a homogeneous societal labour, which solves the first problem. Also, it implies that the labour time would convert to value only if the product manufactured by it has social acceptability, which again takes care of the second problem.

Labour time is distinctly different from socially acceptable labour time.

You've never explained why "socially acceptable labour time" is better than the definition he gave above, because you concede that his definition is right.

The definition is not right. It like saying- An apple is a red fruit. You can't disprove the definition, because it's not technically wrong, however- it is so vague and inadequate and includes so many other fruits that it defeats the purpose of defining it.

But your critisim is he doesn't explain why it is derived value, even though you believe the definition is true. However, stating that value = "socially aceeptable labor time" is a definition, not an explanation of why something derives value. You don't need to answer the "why" to define something, and you haven't answered the "why" either.

Uhh... okay. I have stated that the value is imbibed in an object because labour has been expended on it. The actual value of an object is equal to the socially acceptable labour time.

It was Ricardo who said that and Marx actually discredited his claim. So, apart from being wrong, he is misinformed too.

The socially acceptable labour time is better than the definition he stated, (which has a distinct resemblance to the Austrian definition, incidentally) because it takes into account the deeper resonances in the market. Saying that value is in the mind is extremely abstract, to say the least.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 10:27:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 3:52:36 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 9/1/2012 11:53:11 AM, darkkermit wrote:

My problem is that he's defining it inadequately, making the definition almost false. Value exists inside the brain because there is some form of utility in an object.

Agreed.

The utility that gives it an exchange value. Value is not something that a human mind arbitrarily assigns to any object.

But how much utility someone gets from an object is subjective, differs from person to person and exists in the mind. I get utility from DDO from my mind. Others do not. Some get different levels then me.

Levels of utility is again a vague term.

Yet there are differences in level of utility. Its quite obvious that people get different utility from different things. Utility is itself a vague term.

The value of a commodity would not depend on the utility. Utility gives the object a use value; however in an exchange- what matters is the intrinsic value of the commodity.

If the value exists in the mind, which you already concede is true, then how could it have intrinsic value? If an object has no utility, clearly it has no value.

If you want to buy DDO in exchange for a car, for example, the utility of DDO would be more than that of the car for you, obviously, but the exchange would occur only if the car and DDO have some intrinsic value associated with it.

Proof?

The utility might vary a lot, but what would not vary is the socially acceptable labour time expended on it, hence giving it its value. Value is not subjective, utility derived is.

No it isn't. DDO is worth somewhere in the hundreds of thousands. If DDO became more active, with more people in it, then it would be worth more without anybody expanded labor. This would not contradict and be consist with the idea that value comes from the mind. More people gained value from DDO. However, it would contradict the idea of "socially acceptable labour time" since there was no change in acceptable labour time.


He's misrepresenting the nature of value when he says that we do not need to ask WHY an object gets its value. We do. We need to, if we are to understand the basics of the capitalist system.

The reason why an object gets its value is because we assign it value based on our subjective preferences. Why we have these subjective preferences are psychology and behaviorly related which is different for each good.

I cannot argue that it exists in our mind, because it does. But it exists BECAUSE the object has some form of utility, thus it is not an abstract yardstick subjective to individual whims.

But utility also exists in the mind, as I said earlier and is based on individual whims. Furthermore, since we agreed with the definition of value, If you come up with a new definition of value, it might not necessarily contradict the definition given. But If it does contradict the definition given, we could concede that yours would be wrong.


Utility and subjective yardstrick are not mutually exclusive. Utility is also subjective from person to person.
Yes, exchange occurs because of differing utilities.


Then he goes on to say that asking why an object gets it's value was a mistake Karl Marx made, and then mis-stated the conclusion Marx came to. Marx equated the value of a commodity to 'socially acceptable labour time', which is distinctly different from labour time (which he claims Marx claimed).

The concepts are close enough. The only difference is that:
a) you've made the concept more complex because now you have to state what "socially acceptable" means and what "labor time" means.

No it's not. If we equate value of a commodity to labour time, that would basically mean that the value of a product would be the util equivalent of the time expended on the commodity by a labourer.

No because
a) there are differing values of labor.
b) people can produce at different rates.
c) this is empirically false, since objects with different amounts of
"socially acceptable labor time" have different values. For example, prices can change constantly. While prices aren't soly due to its value, prices are partially due to value, and If the supply doesn't change but the price change, then it is due to a change in value. Prices due to changes in value change constantaly despite the labor time remaining the same. Take for example antiques. Or If you sell a used book. The amount of labor put into it stays the same, but you sell it for less due to wear and tear.

Which would mean that the value of a commodity would increase the more lazier the labourer producing the product is, which is obviously false. Also, it would mean that regardless of the social acceptability of the product manufactured, it would have some value, which is again pretty absurd. (Incidently, this is the reasoning Dr. Pirie used to shoot down this 'Marxian belief', even though it was first Marx who first shot down this belief, which is Ricardian, not Marxian).

When we say that value is equal to socially acceptable labour time, we focus on a homogeneous societal labour, which solves the first problem. Also, it implies that the labour time would convert to value only if the product manufactured by it has social acceptability, which again takes care of the second problem.

Except you still haven't defined what "socially acceptable" is or what "labor time" is. I also have the crititisms above.

Labour time is distinctly different from socially acceptable labour time.

You've never explained why "socially acceptable labour time" is better than the definition he gave above, because you concede that his definition is right.

The definition is not right. It like saying- An apple is a red fruit. You can't disprove the definition, because it's not technically wrong, however- it is so vague and inadequate and includes so many other fruits that it defeats the purpose of defining it.

However, if your definition contradicts the idea that the apple is a red fruit, then we would conclude that your definition would be false.

Calling value - "socially acceptable value time" is much more vague then saying that value is based on our individual subjective preferences/subjective utility.

But your critisim is he doesn't explain why it is derived value, even though you believe the definition is true. However, stating that value = "socially aceeptable labor time" is a definition, not an explanation of why something derives value. You don't need to answer the "why" to define something, and you haven't answered the "why" either.

Uhh... okay. I have stated that the value is imbibed in an object because labour has been expended on it. The actual value of an object is equal to the socially acceptable labour time.

Alright addressed that. Also why would one care how much labor is expanded upon it. I don't buy a car and state, "oh I'm going to buy this because a lot of labor was expanded on it".


It was Ricardo who said that and Marx actually discredited his claim. So, apart from being wrong, he is misinformed too.

The socially acceptable labour time is better than the definition he stated, (which has a distinct resemblance to the Austrian definition, incidentally) because it takes into account the deeper resonances in the market. Saying that value is in the mind is extremely abstract, to say the least.

Abstract =/= wrong. Quantum mechanics is incredibly abstract, but that does not make it wrong.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 8:41:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yet there are differences in level of utility. Its quite obvious that people get different utility from different things. Utility is itself a vague term.

You would get different utilities from consumption of an object. Agreed. How would you rank the utility you derive from the object as compared to that derived by others?

If the value exists in the mind, which you already concede is true, then how could it have intrinsic value?

Because utility and value are quite distinct from each other. Utility is subjective, varies from people to people. Value is not equal to utility, it is equal to the socially acceptable labour time.

If an object has no utility, clearly it has no value.

False. Utility is subjective, it is in the mind of the consumer. If I am a 16 year old who does not know how to drive a car, it has no utility for me. Would you say that a car has no value? Even if an object has no utility for me, the very fact that it can be utilized by other people, and other people can derive satisfaction from the product makes the product valuable to me. It has value because labour has been expended on it, labour that has a socially acceptable character.

Proof?

Oh, I moved a little too fast through that. For you, the utility of DDO would be more than that of the car, that is why you are willing to sell the car. However- when you decide which of the commodity in your possession would be a good trade-off for DDO, obviously you are measuring something- some intrinsic property that you believe is a good exchange for DDO. Something not subjective, because you cannot know what level of satisfaction would be derived from your car by the other party. Utility, as you yourself said- is a vague concept. In the mind. You can't measure parameters that exist in mind. You'll wager using something you believe is objective, something intrinsic to the object. The value. Which exists because of the SA Labour Time.

No it isn't. DDO is worth somewhere in the hundreds of thousands. If DDO became more active, with more people in it, then it would be worth more without anybody expanded labor. This would not contradict and be consist with the idea that value comes from the mind. More people gained value from DDO. However, it would contradict the idea of "socially acceptable labour time" since there was no change in acceptable labour time.

The mantal labour is a form of labour? Aren't you putting in labour when you type out thoughtful responses? It's an important component of labour.

The reason why an object gets its value is because we assign it value based on our subjective preferences. Why we have these subjective preferences are psychology and behaviorly related which is different for each good.

No because
a) there are differing values of labor.
b) people can produce at different rates.

I already addressed that. Okay, let me put this definition of socially acceptable labour time here for future reference: Socially acceptable labour time is the average labour time that would be needed by a homogeneous societal labour to produce a commodity that people demand.

c) this is empirically false, since objects with different amounts of
"socially acceptable labor time" have different values. For example, prices can change constantly. While prices aren't soly due to its value, prices are partially due to value, and If the supply doesn't change but the price change, then it is due to a change in value. Prices due to changes in value change constantaly despite the labor time remaining the same. Take for example antiques. Or If you sell a used book. The amount of labor put into it stays the same, but you sell it for less due to wear and tear.

If the supply doesn't change, the prices change because their AD increases. That is- there is a scarcity of goods. More labour has to be expended to obtain them.

Also, antiques : their value exist BECAUSE they are scarce. And unique. The reason that they are scarce is because it is so tedious to a) find them. B) maintain them. Note that here we are not focusing on the actual labour time- we are focussing on the socially acceptable labour time.

Except you still haven't defined what "socially acceptable" is or what "labor time" is. I also have the crititisms above.

I addressed the criticisms in the next paragraph.

Here:
When we say that value is equal to socially acceptable labour time, we focus on a homogeneous societal labour, which solves the first problem. Also, it implies that the labour time would convert to value only if the product manufactured by it has social acceptability, which again takes care of the second problem.

Alright addressed that. Also why would one care how much labor is expanded upon it. I don't buy a car and state, "oh I'm going to buy this because a lot of labor was expanded on it".

It gains value because labour has been expended on it. You wouldn't trade anything off to get water from the nearby stream- no matter how much utility it will give you.

It was Ricardo who said that and Marx actually discredited his claim. So, apart from being wrong, he is misinformed too.

Abstract =/= wrong. Quantum mechanics is incredibly abstract, but that does not make it wrong.
If I say that apple is a red fruit, would you say my definition is correct?