4 ms·

>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

• 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