5 ms·

This year, in lieu of a gift, my parents gave me a giftcard to an online retailer. The system used by that company to create/distribute/sell/accept giftcards l

• meric 12y ago
  Now imagine, your father was the lead architect of the gift card system he worked on for five years, and he gave you the very first issued gift card as a gift instead. Completely different again. What the students are protesting is how mainstream economics aren't capable of even noticing this value, and what I'm trying to say is they have a point. For certain cases, labor has value for its own sake.
  • Crito 12y ago
    > "Now imagine, your father was the lead architect of the gift card system he worked on for five years, and he gave you the very first issued gift card as a gift instead" Because this (supposedly) time-originating value is present when it was my father that put it in, but completely absent when it wasn't, it is incorrect to ascribe this value to time. Mainstream economics isn't missing anything, these students are just mistaken. Coincidentally, I also received a book this year which was written by my grandfather in the 60s. Folded up inside of it was a letter to him, from Thomas Watson Jr (who was the president of IBM at the time) congratulating him for his contributions to the field and having the book published. In one of the first sections of the book, my grandfather lists various people that helped him write the book and in doing so, reveals that the book was written over the course of several years. This gift is meaningful to me, but not because of the time my grandfather spent on it. If it were meaningful because of the amount of time spent on it, then it would be meaningful to anybody. Obviously that is not the case. In your giftcard situation where the first giftcard is gifted to the child of one of the lead architects, would the gift be less valuable if it wasn't the very first card issued? Presumably you specified that it was the very first card issued for a reason, but any value that first card has which subsequent cards do not is obviously not attributable to the time needed to create that system. Whether you have the first card, or the 5,000,001st card, the same amount of time was spent producing that system. Value added by exclusivity (having the first of something off a production line for example) is well accounted for in modern economics.
    • meric 12y ago
      When the gift card and the scarf is left in a shop amongst many, its subjective value is lost. "If it were meaningful because of the amount of time spent on it, then it would be meaningful to anybody. Obviously that is not the case." Mr. Watson could have written a one-line letter or a ten-line letter, and it would be clear the latter would be more intrinsically valuable, because of the increased effort spent to write it; the increased amount of value is irrelevant to the amount of ink on the paper, and only partially relevant to what the words actually say. You named an example that is less relevant to time, but it doesn't mean time spent performing a work cannot be valuable in and of itself. For example, a mother spending time knitting a scarf for her child would produce a higher value in terms of intrinsic goods than if a mother went to Walmart to purchase a scarf for her child - even if the scarf she knitted and the one from Walmart are physically identical. The time spent knitting is valuable, intrinsically. You can compare the time as well - She could have knitted a small woollen finger ring, or a scarf - and it would be a clear the latter has a larger intrinsic value because of the larger effort spent. "Mainstream economics isn't missing anything, these students are just mistaken." If mainstream economic theory can't understand why people don't relocate to find jobs with $100 more worth of utility, in exchange for losing access to close family members, then is it not missing something? How is it not missing anything if it cannot explain why a child supported by $10,000 of goods and services purchased by its parents is better off than a child supported by $10,000 of goods and services purchased by the state, where intrinsic goods like value in having members of society supported by other family members, rather than by the state, is completely ignored? Mainstream economics theory cannot explain or value intrinsic goods like - kindness, generosity, acceptance, status, love of a parent, romantic attraction, being attractive. These are all things valuable and yet completely unaccounted for. In optimising society for a theory assuming perfectly rational actors, society will lose its irrationality, which is all that makes us human, and alive.
      • Crito 12y ago
        > "For example, a mother spending time knitting a scarf for her child would produce a higher value in terms of intrinsic goods than if a mother went to Walmart to purchase a scarf for her child - even if the scarf she knitted and the one from Walmart are physically identical. The time spent knitting is valuable, intrinsically. You can compare the time as well - She could have knitted a small woollen finger ring, or a scarf - and it would be a clear the latter has a larger intrinsic value because of the larger effort spent." Would the scarf have less value if my mother were particularly skilled at knitting? If time is even one of the factors used to determine the value, then surely the value of that scarf should change one way or the other when you push that 'time to knit' knob one way or the other. It doesn't though. At all. > "If mainstream economic theory can't understand why people don't relocate to find jobs with $100 more worth of utility, in exchange for losing access to close family members," The idea that you really think that mainstream economists do not understand this just floors me. Of course they do. > "Mainstream economics theory cannot explain or value intrinsic goods like - kindness, generosity, acceptance, status, love of a parent, romantic attraction, being attractive. These are all things valuable and yet completely unaccounted for." Complete and utter hogwash.