NationStates Jolt Archive

Something that comes up sometimes is the value of things.

Here's a summary of two big theories behind "value" or worth.

The subjective theory of value (or theory of subjective value) is an economic theory of value that holds that "to possess value an object must be both useful and scarce," with the extent of that value dependent upon the ability of an object to satisfy the wants of any given individual. "Value" here refers to exchange value or price. The theory recognizes that one thing may be more useful in satisfying the wants of one person than another, or of no use to one person and of use to another

The labor theory of value holds that the value of an item comes from the amount of labor spent producing said item. For example, if a chair is produced by two workers in 6 hours, then that chair is worth 2 x 6 = 12 man-hours (this is a simplified case; the labor theory of value takes into consideration only the "necessary" amount of labor that must go into the production of an item, which may be less than the actual expended labor due to inefficiency).

All I want to know is which do you tend to agree with more. LTV ("Intrinsic") or STV ("Subjective")?

There's also the theory of "some things shouldn't have values tacked to them because it will make them worth less."

There's also the theory of "some things shouldn't have values tacked to them because it will make them worth less."

o...k.

But, we have a global economy based on currency, so that's not an option.

Something that comes up sometimes is the value of things.

Here's a summary of two big theories behind "value" or worth.

The subjective theory of value (or theory of subjective value) is an economic theory of value that holds that "to possess value an object must be both useful and scarce," with the extent of that value dependent upon the ability of an object to satisfy the wants of any given individual. "Value" here refers to exchange value or price. The theory recognizes that one thing may be more useful in satisfying the wants of one person than another, or of no use to one person and of use to another

The labor theory of value holds that the value of an item comes from the amount of labor spent producing said item. For example, if a chair is produced by two workers in 6 hours, then that chair is worth 2 x 6 = 12 man-hours (this is a simplified case; the labor theory of value takes into consideration only the "necessary" amount of labor that must go into the production of an item, which may be less than the actual expended labor due to inefficiency).

All I want to know is which do you tend to agree with more. LTV ("Intrinsic") or STV ("Subjective")?


Are we talking about cash value or philosphical value?

If the latter then subjective.

My existance is worth more than the concievable universe, therefore no value can be set for me.

Are we talking about cash value or philosphical value?

Economic value. Cash. This isn't about philosophy.

o...k.

But, we have a global economy based on currency, so that's not an option.From the "you" in the "How much are you 'really worth'" I took this to be about valuating humans. I believe human beings (and a lot of other things) shouldn't fall into either of the two categories, even if we have a global economy based on currency.

If all you're talking about is products, though, then my point was irrelevant.

My existance is worth more than the concievable universe, therefore no value can be set for me.

I'll give you ten dollars and a blow job for your soul.

From the "you" in the "How much are you 'really worth'" I took this to be about valuating humans. I believe human beings (and a lot of other things) shouldn't fall into either of the two categories, even if we have a global economy based on currency.

If all you're talking about is products, though, then my point was irrelevant.

Yeah well, the poll is asking the real question, the thread title is in that context misleading.

No doubt people will not read the poll question and just go on about their sense of self-worth. Making this thread useless. Sigh.

Humans should never be given a monetary value. That's just wrong.

I'll give you ten dollars and a blow job for your soul.

Sold!

*Damn, I still have suckers buying my non-existant soul!*

God this brings back memories, when I was little the other kids would always ask me that as a way of making fun of my last name, which is pronounced like "worth."

Products and skills should be worth what the market is willing to pay to get them.

I mean, if I were to dig a gigantic hole in the ground, according to the LTV that would be worth many times more than a new computer produced on an assembly line using robotic machinery. It's illogical because the amount of work that goes in to a product is not at all representative of how much it is worth, especially considering the fact that reducing the amount of work that has to go in to producing a good is one of the most important goals of any economy in the form of economic productivity.

Economic value. Cash. This isn't about philosophy.

But that assumes you value cash...

Whilst I assert that everything's value is subjective, not all those values need to be preceded by a £.

Yeah well, the poll is asking the real question, the thread title is in that context misleading.

No doubt people will not read the poll question and just go on about their sense of self-worth. Making this thread useless. Sigh.Just add a thing in the OP and file a request in Moderation to change the title to something less misleading.

On topic: The labor theory is relatively useless. "Everything is worth how much its purchaser is willing to pay for it." If it takes you hours to produce a garmet through weaving, and a machine does it much faster, the owner of the machine will be able to produce things faster and thus have more influence on supply than was possible if everything was made by hand. Now that doesn't mean that handwoven objects are now worthless. A handmade Persian carpet is currently worth more than a mass-produced one, simply because there is demand for hand-made carpets in addition to demand for carpets in general.

This shows that something won't be worth how much work is stuck into it, but how much demand there is for it and how much can be supplied.

Economic value. Cash. This isn't about philosophy.

Well both are applicable in economics.

The productionvalue has to be taken into account, but in reality an items value is judged utimatly on what people are prepard to pay, and thus also subjective.

I'll vote for a balance between both.

Products and skills should be worth what the market is willing to pay to get them.

I mean, if I were to dig a gigantic hole in the ground, according to the LTV that would be worth many times more than a new computer produced on an assembly line using robotic machinery. It's illogical because the amount of work that goes in to a product is not at all representative of how much it is worth, especially considering the fact that reducing the amount of work that has to go in to producing a good is one of the most important goals of any economy in the form of economic productivity.
That hole could serve as someone's home, while on the other side you can't live in a computer. Therefore hole>computer

That hole could serve as someone's home, while on the other side you can't live in a computer. Therefore hole>computerYes, but that would be another situation of supply and demand, and hence it would be irrelevant how long someone worked to put together the computer :p

That hole could serve as someone's home, while on the other side you can't live in a computer. Therefore hole>computer

NEEEEOOOOOOO KERVOSKIAAAAAA! Not again!

i'd like to see (or have someone explain me) how the LTV works in practice. if i produce a chair worth of 12 manhours (MH) of work i go to the market and say: "i have a chair worth 12MH!!". then someone comes to me and gives me hard currency in exchange? what if he doesn't want to pay as much? or i'm willing to sell it for less?
and what if i create for instance a piece of art? i might only spend a few hours painting but most of the time art gets selled at way to high prices because it's a unique piece. and how do you calculate the time you spend to think about the painting? it could be that it took you a month to think about it, but it could also eb that you had luck and came with an idea in a few minutes.

I was actually about to start a thread on this very subject but now I don't have to.

I'd have to go with the subjective theory of value. All the work one cares to add willl not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero. By corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value; an untalented cook can turn wholesome dough and fresh green apples, valuable already, into an inedible mess, value zero. Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet.

You're worth as much as people are willing to pay for your ransom.

Subjective value of course.

Something only has value if it has a use and importance. Something you´ve put a lot of effort in can be valuable, but just for you.

Oh, and I guess I´m worth about 100.000 dolars. At least that is the money I could get from donating all my organs.

Ooh, I just did Sums and, if I work until I'm 68, and my pay increases with inflation, I'm worth about £600,000 in today's money! I'm rich :D

Subjective.

I know the LTV tries to say the actual manhours required (and thus, inefficiency goes beyond those, while efficiency stays behind), but in practice, people will try to define LTV as the hours they spent working on it.

But the actual value of an object largely depends on supply and demand, which are both subjective. If you've only got one computer in the world, it is going to be a lot more valuable than if you've got a million. But if that one computer isn't desired, and the million are, then that one computer is again worthless (although it immediately gains value upon demand).