> "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

> "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.