3 ms·

It's too bad we also can't really agree on what value is. A decade or two ago, I'd have told you the companies that are building new technologies (smartphones,

It's too bad we also can't really agree on what value is. A decade or two ago, I'd have told you the companies that are building new technologies (smartphones, streaming services, etc) were creating value. I don't think that at all anymore, even retroactively.

logicchains 1y ago
>It's too bad we also can't really agree on what value is. This is fortunately a problem that economics has already solved: value is what people are willing to pay for. Any other definition involves imposing someone's own subjective judgement on what's valuable.
- rkomorn 1y ago
  I think that totally discards the comment I was responding to. Needless to say, I don't agree with your definition or your idea that it's solved.
  - cloverich 1y ago
    It partially addresses it, specifically addresses one part but not the other. "Value" to the individual is subjective, and defined by the price people are willing and able to pay. Its "solved" in the sense that modern economics universally accepts it. The harder part are the second order effects / negative externalities (e.g. cancer from cigarettes). But it’s a constant balancing act between over- and under-regulation. On a more general level this was represented all the way back in Adam Smith's work. i.e. I don't think it unfair to say value and regulation is a conceptually solved problem, irrespective of the constant attempts to undermine it.
    - rkomorn 1y ago
      Personally, I don't really see the point of coming into a thread while completely disregarding the context. The OP I was replying to brings the notion that money and value aren't the same thing. If someone disagrees with that premise, then maybe they should reply to OP.
- lm28469 1y ago
  Maybe, maybe not, it mostly wasn't a problem for the first 300 000 years of modern human history, now it's our main issue... I think it's worth questioning your "objective" definition
oceanplexian 1y ago
> A decade or two ago, I'd have told you the companies that are building new technologies (smartphones, streaming services, etc) were creating value. I feel like I’m getting old saying this, but no, I was there and the entire tech community went hard against smartphones, claiming they would never be better than a Pocket PC or a Palm Pilot and were simply another marketing ploy by Apple. They claimed that they were inferior to purpose built MP3 players, no one would ever pay hundreds of dollars for a phone, real software developers didn’t write apps, wireless data would never scale, etc. As far as I know all those comments are still preserved for posterity in places like Slashdot.
- rkomorn 1y ago
  Yeah, I... don't think we're on the same page at all. Not only is "smartphones" just an example of things I no longer see as "creating value", but the value vs MP3 players and other devices at the time is also not what I'm talking about. Whatever axe you have to grind against the smartphone naysayers of the time... I have no horse in that race.

logicchains 1y ago

>It's too bad we also can't really agree on what value is. This is fortunately a problem that economics has already solved: value is what people are willing to pay for. Any other definition involves imposing someone's own subjective judgement on what's valuable.

rkomorn 1y ago
I think that totally discards the comment I was responding to. Needless to say, I don't agree with your definition or your idea that it's solved.
- cloverich 1y ago
  It partially addresses it, specifically addresses one part but not the other. "Value" to the individual is subjective, and defined by the price people are willing and able to pay. Its "solved" in the sense that modern economics universally accepts it. The harder part are the second order effects / negative externalities (e.g. cancer from cigarettes). But it’s a constant balancing act between over- and under-regulation. On a more general level this was represented all the way back in Adam Smith's work. i.e. I don't think it unfair to say value and regulation is a conceptually solved problem, irrespective of the constant attempts to undermine it.
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    Personally, I don't really see the point of coming into a thread while completely disregarding the context. The OP I was replying to brings the notion that money and value aren't the same thing. If someone disagrees with that premise, then maybe they should reply to OP.
lm28469 1y ago
Maybe, maybe not, it mostly wasn't a problem for the first 300 000 years of modern human history, now it's our main issue... I think it's worth questioning your "objective" definition

oceanplexian 1y ago

> A decade or two ago, I'd have told you the companies that are building new technologies (smartphones, streaming services, etc) were creating value. I feel like I’m getting old saying this, but no, I was there and the entire tech community went hard against smartphones, claiming they would never be better than a Pocket PC or a Palm Pilot and were simply another marketing ploy by Apple. They claimed that they were inferior to purpose built MP3 players, no one would ever pay hundreds of dollars for a phone, real software developers didn’t write apps, wireless data would never scale, etc. As far as I know all those comments are still preserved for posterity in places like Slashdot.

rkomorn 1y ago
Yeah, I... don't think we're on the same page at all. Not only is "smartphones" just an example of things I no longer see as "creating value", but the value vs MP3 players and other devices at the time is also not what I'm talking about. Whatever axe you have to grind against the smartphone naysayers of the time... I have no horse in that race.