Intrinsic means having value of its own accord. There are lot of things that have value of their own accord beyond food, water and shelter. The human psyche needs more than just food, water and shelter to thrive.
Now you're just being pedantic.
Yes, intangible values have intrinsic value. What I've specifically been talking about (haven't you been reading...?) are goods. Physical items. Specifically, how one would value physical items in a barter/trade scheme if a fiat currency were not in place.If civilization came crashing down on us tomorrow, let's say a mixture of all the classic bugaboos like famine, natural disaster, war, etc., enough to throw us all back to square one and need to revert to subsistence agriculture...would you rather have gold or food?
My point, perhaps equally pedantic, is that currencies as a mode of exchange are only used because people have trust in them. Gold was (and still use) used because on some level people always want gold. As someone wisely stated, something is only worth what someone is willing to trade for it, and, if it came down to it, the only goods of value would be those that help us maintain homeostasis and continue the species.
As I said, NOTHING has intrinsic value. The value of something is what someone wants to pay for it.
As I said, NOTHING has intrinsic value. The value of something is what someone wants to pay for it.
No, things do have value. Your second statement is just saying that that value can change depending on the recipient.
Intrinsic value does not mean constant. Intrinsic just means that the quality of value is inherent in the item.
Smoke rings are kinda neat. Some people spend a lot of time practicing them, which means they assign them value. They don't actually do anything though, except look neat. No intrinsic value.
A hammer has intrinsic value. It's a tool and can serve a purpose, it provides you a mechanical advantage. How much that is worth to you depends on your job, skills or hobby, but the hammer still has value for accomplishing tasks, even if you aren't currently engaged in those tasks or planning to be any time soon. Intrinsic value.
You can't conflate value and being useful. Yes, almost everything around us is useful given a certain situation. Smoke rings, if you were handicapped enough, could be a vital tool for communicating with others after some exploration. Almost everything is USEFUL. That is not the same as having value.
Value is something assigned to an object by a buyer. It can be speculated upon, guessed, and used when negotiating a sale. Sometimes a buyer will not be able to pay what those negotiations lead to, but the value would still be assigned.
Claiming that something has INTRINSIC value means that the item will ALWAYS have value. This is clearly a false statement. If nothing else, it requires a potential buyer. If you have a billion dollars of gold in the desert without others nearby, you're looking at a bloody useless lump of pretty immobile metal. If you have access to a modern shopping center and money to shop there, bark bread isn't going to have any sort of value to you. In short: The concept of VALUE itself is far too situational to ever be called intrinsic. The best you can do is to claim that some objects have value most of the time.
You're not talking about intrinsic value. You're talking about market prices.
I repeat: I am talking about VALUE. Market prices are a function of that. Not surprisingly, the market prices tend to, ummm, you know, match exactly what someone wants to pay for the stuff. Besides, you are talking about whether something has a use in some kind of situation, and see hammers as having intrinsic value, so I feel pretty confident in saying: Your turn.
But what kind of value are you talking about? The matter is not particularly simple; there is a reason no one has been able to agree in a single Theory of Value, despite centuries of work on the matter.
For instance there is one theory, Marginalism (and I think this is the one that more closely fits with Sissyl's argument), that seeks to explain the value of things based on their Marginal Value. Basically, it says that the subjective value of one good will depend on their perceived Marginal Utility, which in turn means basically how much more benefit you get from adding a single additional unit of a good. For example, if you're starving, the first apple you eat will have a massive benefit; the second slightly less, until by the 20th apple you'll be hating them. At this point, we're talking of either a 0 Marginal Utility or a negative one.
As Marginal Utility goes down, the perceived Marginal Utility of other goods increases, causing their crossed relative values (that's it, how much is one thing valued in comparison to another) to change. So that apple that was worth everything to you when starving now is worth less than that glass of water, which also will be worth less than that pair of shoes once you've had your fill.
However, one could also argue that you are mixing the Exchange Value with the Use Value of a good. On one hand, the Use Value is the relationship between how much you want something and how much that something satisfies your need. On the other, the Exchange Value is that which will be given, in terms of different goods, in order to acquire it. At first both things could see very similar, but the difference lies in that while the Use Value is determined how much you need something and the value you assign to that need, the Exchange Value is defined by marketization factors, such as scarcity and speculation.
So all that gold in the desert could have a very high Use Value but a very low Exchange Value, because needs, which in turn define wants, never cease to exist, but are instead in a constant flux of preponderance. So under this model, the fact that you have no current use for the gold does not mean that the gold is worthless; it means that its Exchange Value (and thus its Price, which is what this theory says comes after Exchange Value in a capitalist society) is brought down in comparative terms.
And then there are the schools of thought that argue that all things have an intrinsic value based on their potential satisfaction of needs, or Utility. For instance, gold can serve various purposes, from merely cosmetical to technical. According to this model, the fact that the man in the desert has no desire for the gold merely means that, in his current context, he is unable to maximize the utility provided by the gold. However, there is a latent necessity for it that is currently being overshadowed by other factors (such as his incapacity to work it or his more pressing urge to get water).
Basically, this theory says that things do not spontaneosly develop uses; they always have those uses. It's individuals who have either not yet discovered those uses, not realised they need those uses, or put other sources of utility in front.
Those from the top of my head.
I would love to come into this thread swinging, but, alas my grounding in economic theory is zilch.
I will say, though, Sissyl, the market price of my dimebag is somewhere around ten times exactly what I want to pay for the stuff.
Vive le Galt!
-and-
[bubble bubble bubble]!
I know there is landslides of gobbledigook written about economy, mostly for various ideological views that claim economy as a whole functions like they want society to function. I don't do that. I simply say that any claim that something is worth more than what someone wants to pay for it is bogus. I don't care why someone wants to pay that price, just that they do. And while it is rare that nobody wants food or gold, it is not hard to see
I know there is landslides of gobbledigook written about economy, mostly for various ideological views that claim economy as a whole functions like they want society to function. I don't do that. I simply say that any claim that something is worth more than what someone wants to pay for it is bogus. I don't care why someone wants to pay that price, just that they do. And while it is rare that nobody wants food or gold, it is not hard to see situations when they don't. Thus, no intrinsic values are possible.
Sissyl. You keep talking about PRICE not VALUE. Ergo you are wrong.
I know there is landslides of gobbledigook written about economy, mostly for various ideological views that claim economy as a whole functions like they want society to function. I don't do that. I simply say that any claim that something is worth more than what someone wants to pay for it is bogus. I don't care why someone wants to pay that price, just that they do. And while it is rare that nobody wants food or gold, it is not hard to see situations when they don't. Thus, no intrinsic values are possible.
What would your definition of Value be?
You are honestly claiming that the PRICE of something is defined by what someone wants to pay? Really? The price is a guess at what to charge for something that will maximize profits. If someone wants a billion dollars for a painting, and nobody buys it, the price is still a billion dollars. And the reason nobody bought the painting? Yes. It wasn't worth a billion dollars to any of the potential buyers.
I am talking about value, certainly not price.
My definition is "what someone would pay for it". The method of payment doesn't matter, of course. There can be tons of ways to reach why someone wants to pay, but once all that is done, the definition is simple enough.
Yes, it is circular, of course. But it is the only reasonable definition. Once you start claiming things like "X goes for Y dollars, but it is WORTH Y+Z dollars", you lose.
We have agreed not to buy and sell humans. We don't charge people for air. I don't think this is unreasonable. However, neither do we buy legal rights of any stripe. Either way: It is unnecessary to increase complexity by discussing imponderables. Few economic theories discuss the value of someone's first love.
Edited, sorry.
You can pay someone to work for you. Slavery was abolished some time ago, though, and thus the value of humans is pretty useless.
You are honestly claiming that the PRICE of something is defined by what someone wants to pay?
Yes. Price is whatever something is sold for, not what someone WANTS to sell it for. In short, price is what the buyer and seller agree on when an exchange is made.
VALUE is the benefit you get from that good or service. For example, the benefit I get from my Pathfinder books is recreational. That is its value. Its PRICE is 39.95 retail (or, like, 10 bucks on Amazon hehe).
Oh, by the way, thejeff, what would you say a human is worth? :-)
Rrrright.
In the sake of precision, Price is the intersection of Demand and Supply, while Value is the driving force behind Demand. It is a point of equilibrium between the Demand (always wanting to pay less) and the Supply (always wanting to charge more). Anything the Demand pays beneat the Price is considered Consumer's Benefit, while anything it pays above the Prive is considered Producer's Benefit.
There are several subtypes of Price, such as the Asking Price (what someone requests in payment for a good) and the Transactional Price (what is actually paid when the purchase takes effect), but that's threading too thin for this debate, I believe.
Rrrright.
*raises eyebrow*
Yeah. Okay... So, as meatrace said, we are discussing goods. Physical stuff, and the values of various kinds of that and whether there are physical goods that have intrinsic value. If you want to discuss the number of poems that are of equivalent value to a first kiss, whether looking at funny clouds is worth more or less than hearing a good song, whether three hours of sleep is worth more than breaking your record at tetris... That is up to you. I find it a thoroughly silly concept. If we ignore the realm of nonphysical stuff, then I maintain that nothing exists which has intrinsic value.
P.S. If you are discussing illegal trades, you will find that it is quite possible to assign a value to humans. This is nothing more complicated than what economic gains you expect to gain from owning that human, just like owning stocks. Now, this is of course illegal in most jurisdictions of the world, and should be so.
The intrinsic value of an object is what benefit you would gain from it.
This isn't rocket science!
The PRICE is what you can get for it. The VALUE is what benefit it will bring you. The intrinsic value of food is you get to stay alive. The intrinsic value of a hammer is you can use it to build shelter. The intrinsic value of gasoline (while tied to the availability of an internal combustion engine vehicle) is that it can be used as fuel for transportation.
The intrinsic value of gold, I feel anyway, is virtually zero unless you personally can shape it into a useful item.
Sorry Terquem. I did not understand that at all. If someone thinks their finger is the moon, it may be they need neuroleptics?
Without raw materials to build from, a hammer is not going to do much for you. Without fire of some sort, gasoline is likely most useful to you as a poison. Gold is soft and not very useful metal in itself. And food... Well, there are tons of situations you don't need food, especially since food typically has a best before date. More exactly, you claim that Food has intrinsic value. What kind of food is that? Does intrinsic value of food extend to ALL kinds of food? Does bark bread have intrinsic value if you already have a gourmet meal?
Sorry, while I can agree that food of some sort is pretty important to us, I have a hard time seeing that it should have intrinsic value,
I repeat: I am talking about VALUE. Market prices are a function of that. Not surprisingly, the market prices tend to, ummm, you know, match exactly what someone wants to pay for the stuff. Besides, you are talking about whether something has a use in some kind of situation, and see hammers as having intrinsic value, so I feel pretty confident in saying: Your turn.
Ah, so it's your claim that the market is a true determinant of the value of an object? 2007 called, it has a house it would like to sell you.
In every transaction is an assessment of future use and so on. Otherwise we would never buy things like stocks, for example. It should come as no surprise to you that such assessments are rarely perfect. It is also frequently the case that people lie. The market is a true determinant of value because it finds out in a very concrete manner what someone is willing to pay for something. That does not mean everybody is honest or all-knowing.
All that determines is PRICE.
FFS!!!
You have no intention of trying, do you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I wasn't talking about what you're talking about. You somehow changed topics during the last page.
An intrinsic value would exist whether a market, or money, exists at all. So it doesn't matter what a market is capable of doing, because it is irrelevant.
I'd add an analogy, but all they ever do is drive us onto other tangents.
You have no intention of trying, do you?
I was typing that from my phone, while on a call. Cut me some slack.
Also, get a dictionary.
[whistles innocently as he walks through the thread and surreptitiously drops a link]
[whistles innocently as he walks through the thread and surreptitiously drops a link]
[whistles innocently as he tee-pees Irontruth's home, slashes his tires and sets his mailbox on fire]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well then, that sounds better.
I think we should put smaug on that trillion dollar coin they'll be minting
Just wait until it gets stolen....... =)
I'm sorry i'm a page behind the pig analogies. I'm going to post one anyhow.
Pig is worth 12 chickens: Tomorrow 1 pig is worth 8 chickens, 3 months 5 chickens. Start a campaign called feed the pig to encourage people to start saving pigs for their later years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is one of the creepiest spokes people I've seen in a while.