beentheredonthat

The Intrinsic Value of Nothing, Part 1

Do not confuse usefullness with value.


On Oct 28 11:19 AM beentheredonthat wrote:

> I think you missed the point of this blog. The activity 'striking
> the mule with a hose' has no value, unless someone is willing to
> compensate you for doing so. The hose has value, you paid for it.
> Same said for the mule.

The Intrinsic Value of Nothing, Part 1

I think you missed the point of this blog. The activity 'striking the mule with a hose' has no value, unless someone is willing to compensate you for doing so. The hose has value, you paid for it. Same said for the mule.


On Oct 27 11:25 AM Hester wrote:

> I'm not an economist, and I'm not as smart as you (and I'm not being
> sarcastic). However, I think about your argument in several ways.
> I look at your economic argument from the standpoint as a normal
> American, trying to make it in modern society. I also think of your
> argument as someone who must depend on nobody to survive, as I would
> if there were some disastor that made it so. I am a naturalist as
> well as an investor, so I imagine myself sitting in the woods with
> nobody else, trying to survive. In that situation, neither gold nor
> dollars would be valuable. However, some things would still be valuable,
> which I think refutes the Austrian argument, something is valuable
> only if someone else thinks its valuable.
>
> "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. I want you to try to imagine a universe in which no
> sentient creatures exist. How much would a “car” be worth?"
>
> This makes me think of my days hiking in the Montanan wilderness,
> with nobody else around. If I were to live in that wilderness, alone,
> with no sentient creatures around, how much would a car be worth?
> There would be nobody around to exchange something for it, like gold
> or currency or anything else. So you might say it has no value since
> there is no other human around to value it. However, it does have
> value. I would kill for a car out in that wilderness at times. You
> couldn't drive it anywhere, but you could certainly use it for shelter
> against inclement weather. You could use the cigarette lighter to
> start fires so you could preserve all important matches. You could
> use the gasoline to help fire up wet wood. You could store wood in
> the trunk to keep it dry. There are copious amounts of uses, so it
> has value, even with no other sentient creature around.
>
> You also use an anology containing a mule. If nobody would pay you
> any gold or dollars or whatever for that mule, does that mean it
> has no intrinsic value? No, not in my opinion. I guess it would depend
> on what your definition of intrinsic value is. However, a mule has
> uses and thus retains value no matter what. Even if nobody wanted
> the mule, you could still make use out of it. You could eat it for
> one. My point is, just because nobody else finds something valuable
> does not mean something retains no value.
>
> I'm not making an argument for the labor theory, I am merely stating
> what I thought of when I read this article.