The Intrinsic Value of Nothing, Part 1 [View article]
great point, John. And i would add that only based on your description of value-in-use can object have value in exchange. The author dismisses his "bad theory" rather cavalierly. his "philosophical" premise is superficial
On Oct 27 10:58 AM John Lounsbury wrote:
> Paco - - - > > Good article, but I have a philosophical bone to pick. > > You wrote: > > "Nothing in this universe has intrinsic value; every single thing > you possess, want to possess, use, can use, have used, can offer, > have offered, or will offer is valuable only if someone else finds > it valuable." > > You have defined value in terms of exchange. I would argue that is > too narrow a definition. There are things with intrinsic value independent > of any medium of exchange. Exchange is merely one way, but not the > only way, to define value. > > I maintain that anything necessary for my existence has intrinsic > value. Air to breathe, water to drink and food to eat have intrinsic > value. The value has a binary measurement: either I have these things > and exist or one is missing and I don't exist. > > Most economists make their definitions based on commerce. The basics > of existence don't come into the equation, except for a few fringe > operatives who play with things like "happiness indexes". > > Ultimately, all of the "commercial" definitions of value are secondary > to the "existence" definition of value. We lose sight of that and > many externalities result, which repetitively blow apart the best > of economic theories. Throughout history societies and civilizations > have failed because of resource exhaustion. They thrived on commerce > and decayed on the basis of not sufficiently supporting existence. > > > There absolutely are things with a real intrinsic value. > > I know this is outside the scope you intended to address, but I just > had to have my rant.
Bush always sounds like he is reading a speech that someone else was supposed to deliver. I have never heard anyone I believed less. Does the guy really have any convictions of his own? Why does he bother?
We have had some foolish governments over the years, but this one is populated with a rare breed of incompetents. God help us
The Intrinsic Value of Nothing, Part 1 [View article]
On Oct 27 10:58 AM John Lounsbury wrote:
> Paco - - -
>
> Good article, but I have a philosophical bone to pick.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Nothing in this universe has intrinsic value; every single thing
> you possess, want to possess, use, can use, have used, can offer,
> have offered, or will offer is valuable only if someone else finds
> it valuable."
>
> You have defined value in terms of exchange. I would argue that is
> too narrow a definition. There are things with intrinsic value independent
> of any medium of exchange. Exchange is merely one way, but not the
> only way, to define value.
>
> I maintain that anything necessary for my existence has intrinsic
> value. Air to breathe, water to drink and food to eat have intrinsic
> value. The value has a binary measurement: either I have these things
> and exist or one is missing and I don't exist.
>
> Most economists make their definitions based on commerce. The basics
> of existence don't come into the equation, except for a few fringe
> operatives who play with things like "happiness indexes".
>
> Ultimately, all of the "commercial" definitions of value are secondary
> to the "existence" definition of value. We lose sight of that and
> many externalities result, which repetitively blow apart the best
> of economic theories. Throughout history societies and civilizations
> have failed because of resource exhaustion. They thrived on commerce
> and decayed on the basis of not sufficiently supporting existence.
>
>
> There absolutely are things with a real intrinsic value.
>
> I know this is outside the scope you intended to address, but I just
> had to have my rant.
Wednesday Outlook: Commodities, Emerging Markets [View article]
Wednesday Outlook: Commodities, Emerging Markets [View article]
Bush always sounds like he is reading a speech that someone else was supposed to deliver. I have never heard anyone I believed less. Does the guy really have any convictions of his own? Why does he bother?
We have had some foolish governments over the years, but this one is populated with a rare breed of incompetents. God help us