mr.verymuch

The Intrinsic Value of Nothing, Part 1

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.