4 ms·
The value that people deliver to the world should be a good determinant. :-)
by timothychung 18y ago
The value that people deliver to the world should be a good determinant. :-)
- quizbiz 18y agoHow do you suppose one would measure "value"?
- evgen 18y agoI believe the answer implied was "the market"...
- newt0311 18y agoBy how much they earn. A firm pays their employees in proportion to their contribution (at least on average -- as that is efficient behavior). A firm is paid by customers in proportion to their value contribution. And on and on. Econ 101 of supply, demand, and price signals (one of the few parts that actually works).
- timothychung 18y agoValue is defined in many levels. The easiest definition for everyone should be the value they can think for themselves. For a country, most economists would consider GDP. For me, I would consider sustainability and happiness.
- derefr 18y agoProstitutes deliver huge amounts of value with no education required at all. I'm not sure if that's for or against your point--I've never studied economics--but it seems damning of something. ;)
- azanar 18y agoThe positive value that prostitutes deliver to the world is very fleeting. An orgasm lasts at most several seconds. After a few days, the average male will be jonesing again. The long term value production of the average prostitute strikes me as damn near zero, unless the outlet prevents the john from sexually assaulting someone else. I agree, though, that the short term value can be quite high, and I think that is what people pay for. It seems to me that value delivered to a sufficiently large audience would have to be of the long-term variety, because otherwise it wouldn't last long enough to get sufficiently dispersed. It's possible something might contradict that assertion, but I can't think of any examples right now.
- Eliezer 18y agoYou might as well claim that the value delivered by restaurants is fleeting.
- cousin_it 18y agoRight, but you didn't pick the best example. After all, people need to eat to survive, and survival is a long-term value. I'd mention the whole entertainment industry :-)
- jrp 18y agoThe main point of "eating out" is not nourishment.
- azanar 18y agoOk, I will. The value of restaurants is fleeting. Here's why: The value derived from an individual from a restaurant is food, and perhaps being in a pleasing ambient environment for a short while. They derive value from the environment only while they are there, and from the food for the next day or so. After that, no more value unless you think he might have died otherwise, in which case he gained long term value in still being alive. The deal with restaurants is that they continuously deliver short term value to a stream of people who, hopefully, come back again and again. The value of an individual meal is fleeting, but they're willing to provide that value again and again. My point is not to confuse a steady stream of short term value with a discrete instance of long-term value. I can use a well-built chainsaw for far longer than I can use a New York strip steak from a high class restaurant. Maybe you and I are discussing value from different perspectives though, but I'm not arguing that short-term value is a lesser degree than long term value. I'm just arguing that they aren't the same.
- timothychung 18y agoIt clearly depends on how you define value. So, in general, your case is against my point because you have taken out a lot negative factors in your argument. :-)