Economics Discussion Thread

[36 Camera Perspective]

I completely agree. Value really has no meaning outside of subjective preferences. Things are only valuable in so far as I want them, not because some abstract, hypothetical construct says I should want them. If I don't want it, it's not valuable to me.

WTP reveals how much someone personally values an object through revealed preference (by revealing what he'd sacrifice to get it), "use value" implies there is some objective value outside of this subjective preference - how can this possibly be ascertained and quantified?

You know, there is something inherently absurd about a value theory which implies that all things - includings things like food, water and life-saving medicine - are only useful because people believe them to be useful.

The subjective theory of value carries philosophical implications of extreme moral relativism. Extreme in the sense that if food and water are not objectively valuable or important, then this implies that the preservation of human life is not an objective good. If no good or service is objectively good, that tends to imply that no human action is objectively good (or objectively evil), either.

The STV implies that if a human being is suicidal, and prefers death over life, then there is nothing inherently wrong with this. All preferences are subjective, none are inherently right or wrong.

No wonder the defense of free markets is intimately tied up with social liberalism. It is not logically consistent to defend free markets (based on the subjective theory of value) and hold conservative views on social issues.

Conservatives should realize this, and embrace socialism.

Complete and utter fallacy of equivocation. "Value" in the economic sense has nothing to do with "value" in the normative sense. This is definitely the worst argument you have made in this thread, to be honest. The others were interesting, to give you credit.

[Taihei Tengoku]

I completely agree. Value really has no meaning outside of subjective preferences. Things are only valuable in so far as I want them, not because some abstract, hypothetical construct says I should want them. If I don't want it, it's not valuable to me.

WTP reveals how much someone personally values an object through revealed preference (by revealing what he'd sacrifice to get it), "use value" implies there is some objective value outside of this subjective preference - how can this possibly be ascertained and quantified?

You know, there is something inherently absurd about a value theory which implies that all things - includings things like food, water and life-saving medicine - are only useful because people believe them to be useful.

The subjective theory of value carries philosophical implications of extreme moral relativism. Extreme in the sense that if food and water are not objectively valuable or important, then this implies that the preservation of human life is not an objective good. If no good or service is objectively good, that tends to imply that no human action is objectively good (or objectively evil), either.

The STV implies that if a human being is suicidal, and prefers death over life, then there is nothing inherently wrong with this. All preferences are subjective, none are inherently right or wrong.

No wonder the defense of free markets is intimately tied up with social liberalism. It is not logically consistent to defend free markets (based on the subjective theory of value) and hold conservative views on social issues.

Conservatives should realize this, and embrace socialism.

Again you are dumber than you take your opponents to be. Subjective/marginal theory is a way to explain how people make decisions going forward, not to establish a timeless Table of Prices.

[36 Camera Perspective]

You know, there is something inherently absurd about a value theory which implies that all things - includings things like food, water and life-saving medicine - are only useful because people believe them to be useful.

The subjective theory of value carries philosophical implications of extreme moral relativism. Extreme in the sense that if food and water are not objectively valuable or important, then this implies that the preservation of human life is not an objective good. If no good or service is objectively good, that tends to imply that no human action is objectively good (or objectively evil), either.

The STV implies that if a human being is suicidal, and prefers death over life, then there is nothing inherently wrong with this. All preferences are subjective, none are inherently right or wrong.

No wonder the defense of free markets is intimately tied up with social liberalism. It is not logically consistent to defend free markets (based on the subjective theory of value) and hold conservative views on social issues.

Conservatives should realize this, and embrace socialism.

Again you are dumber than you take your opponents to be. Subjective/marginal theory is a way to explain how people make decisions going forward, not to establish a timeless Table of Prices.

This is really doing too much just to address an argument that's blatantly informally fallacious.

[Taihei Tengoku]

I wrote the second sentence in order to professionally mask the first.

[Constantinopolis]

You know, there is something inherently absurd about a value theory which implies that all things - includings things like food, water and life-saving medicine - are only useful because people believe them to be useful.

The subjective theory of value carries philosophical implications of extreme moral relativism. Extreme in the sense that if food and water are not objectively valuable or important, then this implies that the preservation of human life is not an objective good. If no good or service is objectively good, that tends to imply that no human action is objectively good (or objectively evil), either.

The STV implies that if a human being is suicidal, and prefers death over life, then there is nothing inherently wrong with this. All preferences are subjective, none are inherently right or wrong.

No wonder the defense of free markets is intimately tied up with social liberalism. It is not logically consistent to defend free markets (based on the subjective theory of value) and hold conservative views on social issues.

Conservatives should realize this, and embrace socialism.

Complete and utter fallacy of equivocation. "Value" in the economic sense has nothing to do with "value" in the normative sense.

But a connection between "value" in the economic sense and "value" in the normative sense is established the moment you argue, for example, that it is morally good to achieve economic growth. Or that any other economic goal is good in a normative sense.

What is economic growth? An increase in economic values. So if you say that economic growth is a normative good, then you are saying than an increase in economic values is a normative good. So you establish a connection between economic value and normative value.

Now, if you avoid saying that any economic goal is good or bad, then - and ONLY THEN - can you avoid linking economic values and normative values.

[Constantinopolis]

You know, there is something inherently absurd about a value theory which implies that all things - includings things like food, water and life-saving medicine - are only useful because people believe them to be useful.

The subjective theory of value carries philosophical implications of extreme moral relativism. Extreme in the sense that if food and water are not objectively valuable or important, then this implies that the preservation of human life is not an objective good. If no good or service is objectively good, that tends to imply that no human action is objectively good (or objectively evil), either.

The STV implies that if a human being is suicidal, and prefers death over life, then there is nothing inherently wrong with this. All preferences are subjective, none are inherently right or wrong.

No wonder the defense of free markets is intimately tied up with social liberalism. It is not logically consistent to defend free markets (based on the subjective theory of value) and hold conservative views on social issues.

Conservatives should realize this, and embrace socialism.

Again you are dumber than you take your opponents to be. Subjective/marginal theory is a way to explain how people make decisions going forward, not to establish a timeless Table of Prices.

Alright, let me ask you this:

Is it possible for people's subjective valuations to be, in a moral sense, wrong - such that we would be morally obligated to prevent people from doing what they wish to do?

[Taihei Tengoku]

Complete and utter fallacy of equivocation. "Value" in the economic sense has nothing to do with "value" in the normative sense.

But a connection between "value" in the economic sense and "value" in the normative sense is established the moment you argue, for example, that it is morally good to achieve economic growth. Or that any other economic goal is good in a moral sense.

Given that you don't move to Mozambique or even Belarus I think we know the answer.

Again you are dumber than you take your opponents to be. Subjective/marginal theory is a way to explain how people make decisions going forward, not to establish a timeless Table of Prices.

Alright, let me ask you this:

Is it possible for people's subjective valuations to be, in a moral sense, wrong - such that we would be morally obligated to prevent people from doing what they wish to do?

Yes, like yours.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Complete and utter fallacy of equivocation. "Value" in the economic sense has nothing to do with "value" in the normative sense.

But a connection between "value" in the economic sense and "value" in the normative sense is established the moment you argue, for example, that it is morally good to achieve economic growth. Or that any other economic goal is good in a moral sense.

What is economic growth? An increase in economic values. So if you say that economic growth is a moral good, then you are saying than an increase in economic values is a moral good. So you establish a connection between economic value and moral value.

Now, if you avoid saying that any economic goal is good or bad, then - and ONLY THEN - can you avoid linking economic values and moral values.

You are completely missing the point, which is that asserting economic values are subjective has nothing to do with asserting that normative values are subjective. It is logically consistent to affirm STV and be a moral realist (I am one of these people). You have done nothing to prove that STV leads to moral relativism other than equivocate on the meaning of the word "value". Your argument is just sleight of hand.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Lay out your premises formally, Constantinopolis. Show me a logical proof that STV necessarily entails moral relativism.

[Constantinopolis]

But a connection between "value" in the economic sense and "value" in the normative sense is established the moment you argue, for example, that it is morally good to achieve economic growth. Or that any other economic goal is good in a moral sense.

Given that you don't move to Mozambique or even Belarus I think we know the answer.

So you do believe that increasing economic value is a moral good, yes? Presumably an important moral good?

Then you are saying that moral good - an important moral good - depends on economic values. And since economic values are subjective, this means moral good is subjective too.

Alright, let me ask you this:

Is it possible for people's subjective valuations to be, in a moral sense, wrong - such that we would be morally obligated to prevent people from doing what they wish to do?

Yes, like yours.

Then you agree that markets sometimes lead to morally evil outcomes, which should be prevented. This is not consistent with supporting free markets.

[36 Camera Perspective]

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument. Examples: I have the right to watch "The Real World." Therefore it's right for me to watch the show.

(Texas State University, Philosophy Department)

The subjective theory of value carries philosophical implications of extreme moral relativism. Extreme in the sense that if food and water are not objectively valuable or important,

Here, "objectively valuable or important" refers to economic value.

then this implies that the preservation of human life is not an objective good.

Here, "objective good" refers to normative value. Your conditional statement commits the fallacy of equivocation.

If no good or service is objectively good,

This is just outright ambiguous. STV asserts that no good or service has objective economic value, but you seem to be using "good" in the normative sense, which not only distorts what STV actually says, but serves to commit the fallacy of equivocation (again).

that tends to imply that no human action is objectively good (or objectively evil), either.

Now we're talking about normative value again.

The STV implies that if a human being is suicidal, and prefers death over life, then there is nothing inherently wrong with this.

No, it doesn't, because the STV is a theory of economic value, not a theory of normative value.

All preferences are subjective, none are inherently right or wrong.

Subjective = in the economic sense, "right or wrong" = in the normative sense

Again, fallacy of equivocation

[Hydesland]

You know, there is something inherently absurd about a value theory which implies that all things - includings things like food, water and life-saving medicine - are only useful because people believe them to be useful.

The subjective theory of value carries philosophical implications of extreme moral relativism. Extreme in the sense that if food and water are not objectively valuable or important, then this implies that the preservation of human life is not an objective good. If no good or service is objectively good, that tends to imply that no human action is objectively good (or objectively evil), either.

The STV implies that if a human being is suicidal, and prefers death over life, then there is nothing inherently wrong with this. All preferences are subjective, none are inherently right or wrong.

No wonder the defense of free markets is intimately tied up with social liberalism. It is not logically consistent to defend free markets (based on the subjective theory of value) and hold conservative views on social issues.

Conservatives should realize this, and embrace socialism.

I mean, to an extent you're correct. Philosophically speaking, I'm practically a nihilist - value is subjective, I don't believe there is any tangible in intrinsic "value" that exists independently of our beliefs or instinct. That's not to say moral codes aren't useful, or even necessary - which in fact is why I'm not some hedonistic libertarian who wants unfettered free markets.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Given that you don't move to Mozambique or even Belarus I think we know the answer.

So you do believe that increasing economic value is a moral good, yes? Presumably an important moral good?

Then you are saying that moral good - an important moral good - depends on economic values. And since economic values are subjective, this means moral good is subjective too.

Good things cost money and I don't really know how many life-saving medicines Zimbabwe can produce. Economic values aren't subjective, the valuation of individual goods by their purchasers are. You cannot determine what any given stranger halfway around the world ought to do with his time and money, or even a stranger from the next town over. What the institutional structure to facilitate good decisions can be objectively determined and it doesn't look good for Marxism.

Then you agree that markets sometimes lead to morally evil outcomes, which should be prevented.

Your attempt to overthrow them leads to morally evil outcomes, or "large externalities" in economese.

[36 Camera Perspective]

I mean, to an extent you're correct.

No. Constantinopolis is not correct at all; this is the farthest you can be from correct.

[Constantinopolis]

But a connection between "value" in the economic sense and "value" in the normative sense is established the moment you argue, for example, that it is morally good to achieve economic growth. Or that any other economic goal is good in a moral sense.

What is economic growth? An increase in economic values. So if you say that economic growth is a moral good, then you are saying than an increase in economic values is a moral good. So you establish a connection between economic value and moral value.

Now, if you avoid saying that any economic goal is good or bad, then - and ONLY THEN - can you avoid linking economic values and moral values.

You are completely missing the point, which is that asserting economic values are subjective has nothing to do with asserting that normative values are subjective. It is logically consistent to affirm STV and be a moral realist (I am one of these people). You have done nothing to prove that STV leads to moral relativism other than equivocate on the meaning of the word "value". Your argument is just sleight of hand.

Lay out your premises formally, Constantinopolis. Show me a logical proof that STV necessarily entails moral relativism.

It is not possible to hold the following three beliefs at the same time:

(a) economic value is subjective
(b) economic growth (or some other goal that depends on economic values) is a normative good
(c) normative good is objective (i.e. it does not depend on people's opinions)

If economic value is subjective, and depends on people's subjective valuations, then economic goals must also depend on people's subjective valuations. So, if a certain economic goal is a normative good, then this normative good depends on people's subjective valuations. So it cannot be objective. It would change if people's opinions (i.e. subjective valuations) would change.

Concrete example: Suppose that economic value is subjective (a), and we believe that it is a moral good to sell people something that they wish to obtain (b). Next, suppose there is a community of people who wish to drink poison in order to die and get picked up by an alien spaceship. Then it is a moral good to sell them poison.

[Taihei Tengoku]

MTV is the most correct--it most accurately describes the actual process of price discovery.
Free markets are correct--it produces the most resources.
Your opinion can be discarded without anybody worthwhile caring--if you got your way a lot of people would die.

QED

[Orostan]

You misunderstand what I mean. I'm sorry if i didn't explain what i was trying to say clear enough. When i said that a designer determines use values I meant it in the terms that the designer determines what the product is supposed to do, what need it is supposed to fill.

The LTV only applies to fungible commodities - commodities which accomplish the same goal yet are different, like for example the car enthusiast cannot exchange his Model T for a different car and get the same pleasure of looking at it so Model T cars are not fungible because the Model T is the only car that can accomplish a certain use value, in this case giving the car enthusiast pleasure.

A similar situation is that of an artist. If Bob's art is in a unique style, than a simple drawing from him is not the same as a simple drawing from anyone else - it is not fungible. That means that Bob can put in less effort to the drawing, yet have it be worth more if it's in his own unique style than a different person's simple drawing in a common style.

1) The gap between design and use is well documented in reality. The omniscient designer LTV requires doesn't exist in reality.
2) Fungible goods are not exempt from reconciling multiple uses at the same time.
3) How are non-fungible commodities valued?

1)LTV does not require an omniscient designer, use values can exist in a product even if the designer did not design a product to accomplish that use value. The designer just tries to make a product that has a specific use value. A steel beam can be used to support a building as well as to be a battering ram, but the designers did not intend for the beam most likely to be used as a battering ram so it will probably have less use value as a battering ram then something designed to be a battering ram.

2)Fungible goods can have multiple uses, yes. That refutes nothing.

3)Non-fungible commodities are valued by supply and demand. There is a reason art is a frequent subject of bidding wars.

[36 Camera Perspective]

It is not possible to hold the following three beliefs at the same time:

(a) economic value is subjective
(b) economic growth (or some other goal that depends on economic values) is a normative good
(c) normative good is objective (i.e. it does not depend on people's opinions)

If economic value is subjective, and depends on people's subjective valuations, then economic goals must also depend on people's subjective valuations. So, if a certain economic goal is a normative good, then this normative good depends on people's subjective valuations. So it cannot be objective. It would change if people's opinions (i.e. subjective valuations) would change.

In order to affirm STV, one must only affirm A.

[Constantinopolis]

The subjective theory of value carries philosophical implications of extreme moral relativism. Extreme in the sense that if food and water are not objectively valuable or important,

Here, "objectively valuable or important" refers to economic value.

then this implies that the preservation of human life is not an objective good.

Here, "objective good" refers to normative value. Your conditional statement commits the fallacy of equivocation.

No, I did not equivocate, I simply skipped a step.

The intermediate step is: "...and if we believe that economic values determine what is or isn't a normative good..."

In practice, everyone I know agrees that economic values determine what is or isn't a normative good.

The STV implies that if a human being is suicidal, and prefers death over life, then there is nothing inherently wrong with this.

No, it doesn't, because the STV is a theory of economic value, not a theory of normative value.

Economic value is inseparable from normative value.

My argument was based on this fact, which I consider to be self-evident. That is why I also said:

Now, if you avoid saying that any economic goal is good or bad, then - and ONLY THEN - can you avoid linking economic values and normative values.

The moment you say that an economic goal is good (in the sense of moral good), you have linked economic value (which the goal depends on) with moral value (because you just said the goal was morally good).

[36 Camera Perspective]

The intermediate step is: "...and if we believe that economic values determine what is or isn't a normative good..."

In practice, everyone I know agrees that economic values determine what is or isn't a normative good.

Seriously?

[Taihei Tengoku]

1) The gap between design and use is well documented in reality. The omniscient designer LTV requires doesn't exist in reality.
2) Fungible goods are not exempt from reconciling multiple uses at the same time.
3) How are non-fungible commodities valued?

1)LTV does not require an omniscient designer, use values can exist in a product even if the designer did not design a product to accomplish that use value. The designer just tries to make a product that has a specific use value. A steel beam can be used to support a building as well as to be a battering ram, but the designers did not intend for the beam most likely to be used as a battering ram so it will probably have less use value as a battering ram then something designed to be a battering ram.

2)Fungible goods can have multiple uses, yes. That refutes nothing.

3)Non-fungible commodities are valued by supply and demand. There is a reason art is a frequent subject of bidding wars.

1) Then its use as a battering ram is valued subjectively. Even steel beams used in construction are bought by the contractors until the point which the next one is no longer needed in which case its price remains the same but it remains unsold. MTV provides a wholly satisfactory explanation (people buy until the marginal cost exceeds marginal benefit) while LTV has to do this convoluted explanation that presupposes the buyer or retailer cares what the designer thinks of him miles and years away.
2) see 1)
3) ok

[Taihei Tengoku]

My argument was based on this fact, which I consider to be self-evident.

lmao

[Constantinopolis]

It is not possible to hold the following three beliefs at the same time:

(a) economic value is subjective
(b) economic growth (or some other goal that depends on economic values) is a normative good
(c) normative good is objective (i.e. it does not depend on people's opinions)

If economic value is subjective, and depends on people's subjective valuations, then economic goals must also depend on people's subjective valuations. So, if a certain economic goal is a normative good, then this normative good depends on people's subjective valuations. So it cannot be objective. It would change if people's opinions (i.e. subjective valuations) would change.

In order to affirm STV, one must only affirm A.

True.

But in practice, practically everyone affirms B. I certainly do. I bet you do as well. Everyone who has an opinion on economic policy affirms B.

This leaves us unable to affirm both A and C at the same time.

[Taihei Tengoku]

MTV is the most correct--it most accurately describes the actual process of price discovery.
Free markets are correct--it produces the most resources.
Your opinion can be discarded without anybody worthwhile caring--if you got your way a lot of people would die.

QED

I did A, B, and C just a minute ago

[Constantinopolis]

The intermediate step is: "...and if we believe that economic values determine what is or isn't a normative good..."

In practice, everyone I know agrees that economic values determine what is or isn't a normative good.

Seriously?

Yes.

Do you or do you not believe that economic growth - or some other goal that depends on economic values - is a normative good?