Value, lack there of, and "High End"

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

3 hours ago, bluesman said:

 

I'm still seeing this as a simple application of the value equation:  the pensioner of limited means determines whether or not food, clothing, medicine, transportation etc and the benefits of same are worth more to him or her than $1500 headphones.  If yes, the cans remain with the vendor.  If no, they go home with the pensioner.

 

Assuming that he or she has $1500, decision support for this is subjective, despite the obvious (at least to me) fact that foregoing medication to have better sound seems like a foolish choice.  Then again, sacrificing meds to buy cigarettes and booze is equally dumb but done every day by millions of people around the world.  It's all a matter of relative worth for a given cost.

 

Yes, I know what the subjective theory of value is.  However, you have not established or even made plausible the idea that value of a good is determined by an inherent property of the good. You also, talk about "rational". Are you defining rational as:

the agent will pay less than or equal to the amount for the good as determined by its inherent property?  If so, how is the agent to determine value from said inherent property?  Is there a price list?     

 

 

Oops. I quoted the wrong person. I was replying to Crenca. I am in agreement with bluesman insofar as I accept the subjective theory of value.

[lucretius]

On 5/30/2019 at 3:38 PM, crenca said:

The evidence for value being at least partially determined (not a good word, but let's use it for now) by an "inherent property" is everywhere.  No matter what the economic station in life, most folks have an intuitive sense of value, when they are not being philosophers and trying to justify it

 

Is this really an intuitive sense of value or is it just knowledge of market prices?

[lucretius]

6 hours ago, crenca said:

By "radical subjective" I mean the idea (really, a set of ideas) that value is subjectively determined.  So the pensioner of limited means would say a $1500 HP is not a value because he or she could never afford it.  The Oligarch would say the $1500 HP is a value because any good or service to him or her below some amount (let's say a $1,000,000) is a rounding error on his bank account.   

 

Radical Subjectivism is radical in the sense that we extend subjectivism to not only preferences but to expectations as well. Economic value is an agent’s measure of preference for a particular good.  So far, that is not radical; we have not said anything of expectations. Whence cometh the radical?

[bluesman]

23 minutes ago, lucretius said:

Whence cometh the radical?

 

You Kant mean that!  

 

Perhaps it's literally "radical", per the definition of the Greek word from which it arose: at, in or from the roots. 

 

There are some inherent aspects of subjectivism that strike me as pretty radical, e.g.

• Suppose subjectivism is correct and there are no objective moral truths.  Then the belief that lying is good, when expressed by a person who genuinely approves of telling lies, would be true. It would only be untrue if that person were knowingly lying about it.
• If moral statements have no objective truth to them, how could we say that murder is wrong?

And then there's the practical subjectivism of John Steinbeck, who wrote in the Grapes of Wrath that "[t]here ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue. There's just stuff people do."  

 

Although it's fun to stretch the mental muscles,, this thread mixes (and perhaps confuses) a bunch of loosely related concepts and facts that don't really belong together.  There are subjectivist theories of economics, e.g. Keynes' and Hayec's, but they're not the same as the philosophical subjectivist theories of Kant, Descartes, et al.  To philosophers, the subjectivist says simply enough that perception is reality.  The subjectivist economist, OTOH, is concerned with subjective perceptions of value.  Subjectivist economists (e.g. Bastiat, Menger et al) believe that for trade to occur between two people, each must assess the items traded differently - and each must prefer what he hopes to receive over what he is giving up for it.

 

Both appear to me to be reasonable models for the acquisition of audio equipment.

[Ralf11]

lying is good, and deception is practiced by many species, not just humans or primates

[lucretius]

19 hours ago, bluesman said:

There are some inherent aspects of subjectivism that strike me as pretty radical, e.g.

• Suppose subjectivism is correct and there are no objective moral truths.  Then the belief that lying is good, when expressed by a person who genuinely approves of telling lies, would be true. It would only be untrue if that person were knowingly lying about it.
• If moral statements have no objective truth to them, how could we say that murder is wrong? 

And then there's the practical subjectivism of John Steinbeck, who wrote in the Grapes of Wrath that "[t]here ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue. There's just stuff people do."  

 

 

Is it inconsistent to hold a subjective theory of value while maintaining morality is objective?

 

When economists say value is subjective, this means that people have different tastes and preferences and people value things differently. The way to know what something is worth is to say what it is worth to someone.

 

If people have different tastes and preferences, we need an objective moral framework to live together in society. We have to have an objective way of knowing what to expect from each other and how to treat each other. Otherwise, people of different tastes and preferences will each have their own (different) morality. (if expectations were subjective, now that would be 'radical'.)

 

And, since we had been discussing the subjective theory of value, what is 'radical' about people having different tastes and preferences and people valuing things differently?

 

19 hours ago, bluesman said:

Although it's fun to stretch the mental muscles,, this thread mixes (and perhaps confuses) a bunch of loosely related concepts and facts that don't really belong together.  There are subjectivist theories of economics, e.g. Keynes' and Hayec's, but they're not the same as the philosophical subjectivist theories of Kant, Descartes, et al.  To philosophers, the subjectivist says simply enough that perception is reality.  The subjectivist economist, OTOH, is concerned with subjective perceptions of value.  Subjectivist economists (e.g. Bastiat, Menger et al) believe that for trade to occur between two people, each must assess the items traded differently - and each must prefer what he hopes to receive over what he is giving up for it. 

 

 

Exactly!

 

19 hours ago, bluesman said:

Both appear to me to be reasonable models for the acquisition of audio equipment.

 

There seems to be much 'irrational' behavior demonstrated in the acquisition of audio equipment.

[lucretius]

delete

[lucretius]

delete

[Ralf11]

so, you felt that the 2 posts above lacked value??

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

so, you felt that the 2 posts above lacked value??

 

I decided to combine the first deleted post with the post preceding it. The second deleted post was created in error. Sorry!!

[ernando]

Economic value is defined as the maximum amount of money an agent will pay for a good or service. Empirically, this amount varies among individuals, suggesting that it is subjective. But in any case, I recommend this service