6 ms·

Really valuation as a pursuit was abandoned for a damned good reason - it took a lot of time to get it through most of humanity's thick heads that value is circ

Really valuation as a pursuit was abandoned for a damned good reason - it took a lot of time to get it through most of humanity's thick heads that value is circumstance based. Even something outragously useful like a fountain of youth would become relatively worthless if it was nearly ubiquitous like oxygen. Likewise the public sector section is annoyingly simplistic in that it doesn't grasp the difference between neccessary and sufficent in creation. Research certainly does give major dividend when it is pulled off but it also requires utilization. I am not sure if the actual book addresses it better but any refusal to acknowledge the complexity and tries for a simple one size fits all is frankly insane.

claudiawerner 7y ago
All theories of value integrate the idea of circumstance into their workings; Ricardo himself realized this. The spirit of the marginalist objection to an "objective" theory of value (I put objective in quotes because it's a mistake to view it as anything but as Marx put it a "phantom-like objectivity") was put by Whatley in 1832: "It is not that pearls fetch a high price because men have dived for them; but on the contrary, men dive for them because they fetch a high price" but as Cockshott and Cottrel put in Classical Econophysics, "if pearls washed up on the beach, they would not collect anything like their current price". Ricardo's reply was that the precondition to a commodity having value is that it is firstly an object of demand. Smith's, Ricardo's and Marx's theories of value (the commonalities of which tend to be overstated, even by the likes of greats such as Samuelson) all describe the case in which if I decide to make a product and nobody (or not enough people) want it, this leads to my realization that what I've been doing is useless and subsequently moving my capital elsewhere. I think Carchedi and Kliman defend Marx's version of the "labour theory of value" quite well, as do Shaikh and Tonak on empirical grounds, and from an opposing perspective Dumenil and Levy do as well. Others, such as Moseley and Patrick Murray, relax their conditions a litle and argue that it is a mistake to apply the theory to individual commodities, rather, it can only be applied to "aliquots representative of the lot". I have a comment here with some (slightly outdated) information as to the status of the classical (mostly Ricardian and Marxian) theories of value among the people who still study it (usually heterodox economists): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18490388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18490388
randcraw 7y ago
You make the author's point for her. When any model for valuation disregards the vast good arising from a fountain of youth, that (margin-based) model is corrupt. (Obviously I'm disregarding all the derivative concerns that inevitably would arise from introducing immortality. After all, it's simply one possible example of a vastly undervalued innovation.)
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  But the good arising from a fountain of youth really is negligible if there are a hundred other identical fountains right next to it. It's only outrageously useful if you make the additional assumption that it's hard to replace.
  - randcraw 7y ago
    Rarity is not the only possible basis for value. Public good is another.
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      The 101st fountain of youth in a line is not producing any significant public good. I just said this. If it was destroyed, we would be no worse off.

claudiawerner 7y ago

All theories of value integrate the idea of circumstance into their workings; Ricardo himself realized this. The spirit of the marginalist objection to an "objective" theory of value (I put objective in quotes because it's a mistake to view it as anything but as Marx put it a "phantom-like objectivity") was put by Whatley in 1832: "It is not that pearls fetch a high price because men have dived for them; but on the contrary, men dive for them because they fetch a high price" but as Cockshott and Cottrel put in Classical Econophysics, "if pearls washed up on the beach, they would not collect anything like their current price". Ricardo's reply was that the precondition to a commodity having value is that it is firstly an object of demand. Smith's, Ricardo's and Marx's theories of value (the commonalities of which tend to be overstated, even by the likes of greats such as Samuelson) all describe the case in which if I decide to make a product and nobody (or not enough people) want it, this leads to my realization that what I've been doing is useless and subsequently moving my capital elsewhere. I think Carchedi and Kliman defend Marx's version of the "labour theory of value" quite well, as do Shaikh and Tonak on empirical grounds, and from an opposing perspective Dumenil and Levy do as well. Others, such as Moseley and Patrick Murray, relax their conditions a litle and argue that it is a mistake to apply the theory to individual commodities, rather, it can only be applied to "aliquots representative of the lot". I have a comment here with some (slightly outdated) information as to the status of the classical (mostly Ricardian and Marxian) theories of value among the people who still study it (usually heterodox economists): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18490388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18490388

randcraw 7y ago

You make the author's point for her. When any model for valuation disregards the vast good arising from a fountain of youth, that (margin-based) model is corrupt. (Obviously I'm disregarding all the derivative concerns that inevitably would arise from introducing immortality. After all, it's simply one possible example of a vastly undervalued innovation.)

thaumasiotes 7y ago
But the good arising from a fountain of youth really is negligible if there are a hundred other identical fountains right next to it. It's only outrageously useful if you make the additional assumption that it's hard to replace.
- randcraw 7y ago
  Rarity is not the only possible basis for value. Public good is another.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    The 101st fountain of youth in a line is not producing any significant public good. I just said this. If it was destroyed, we would be no worse off.