24 ms·
That's the cost approach to value, and directly speaking, it's a fallacy, as what you gave up is now a sunk cost. However, if nothing has really changed since y
by aaronchall 8y ago
That's the cost approach to value, and directly speaking, it's a fallacy, as what you gave up is now a sunk cost. However, if nothing has really changed since you made the decision, it certainly establishes a minimum value to yourself as a revealed preference.
Another is what would others give you for what you have (market value).
I think the best one, that you can uniquely derive for yourself, is what is the maximum value at which you would have been indifferent to make the trade - that's the true value to yourself.
- lifeisstillgood 8y agoJust on your last paragraph- if I choose between apples and oranges, and am indifferent at 2 apples or one orange i see that an orange is worth two apples to me? is that your meaning?
- aaronchall 8y agoYes. If you would gladly give up one apple for one orange, indifferent at two apples for one orange, and at three apples, you'd certainly decline to trade - then an orange, to you, is worth two apples.