Is price and value interchangable? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14947656
Has somebody been reading my discussion with Saeko and Potemkin on TLTE? Eh @B0ycey :excited:

Price is meant to reflect the market value of a good or service in terms of a medium-of-exchange (assuming post-barter market societies).

When we say that something is "priceless," (if we truly mean that), we only mean that its value (as we impute to its as potential consumers) is so great that no amount of money (medium-of-exchange) would provoke us to voluntarily sell or trade that good or service.

This thread should be moved to Economics, FYI.
#14947657
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Has somebody been reading my discussion with Saeko and Potemkin on TLTE? Eh @B0ycey :excited: .


I thought I would give you a platform. Interesting topics don't belong on TLTE.

But no the thread belongs here. You are discussing a concept not an outcome.
Last edited by B0ycey on 20 Sep 2018 21:22, edited 1 time in total.
#14947659
You should link the conversation from TLTE (both pages) in the OP for other posters to reference for context. Just edit you OP and add.

B0ycey wrote:I thought I would give you a platform. Interesting topics don't belong on TLTE.


How thoughtful of you. :lol:

Whats your opinion?
#14947662
Victoribus Spolia wrote:You should link the conversation from TLTE (both pages) in the OP for other posters to reference for context. Just edit you OP and add.


I only have limited abilities on my phone. But I am sure the relevant details will be repeated if need be.

How thoughtful of you. :lol:

Whats your opinion?


They are not. Although I don't disagree with everything you said. But price is down to supply and demand. Value is down to necessity.
#14947669
Victoribus Spolia wrote:But if you REALLY need something wouldn't you be willing to pay more for it?


Sure. And that is down to supply and demand. If the supply is plenty, the value remains the same but the price will shorten. If the supply is weak, the price will rise but the value again remains the same.

But to ask you two questions, what would you rather live without, water or your computer?

Second question. What would you rather spend a $1000 on? A bottle of water or a computer?
Last edited by B0ycey on 20 Sep 2018 21:38, edited 1 time in total.
#14947670
B0ycey wrote:
Sure. And that is down to supply and demand. If the supply is plenty, the value remains the same but the price will shorten. If the supply is weak, the price will rise but the value is the same.


So you wouldn't value a bottle of water more if you were dying of thirst in the Sahara than if you were swimming in lake Tahoe? :eh:
#14947671
Victoribus Spolia wrote:So you wouldn't value a bottle of water more if you were dying of thirst in the Sahara than if you were swimming in lake Tahoe? :eh:


I need water if I was in the Sahara or if I was by a lake. It is that valuable to me. But as the supply is lacking in the Sahara, I would definately pay more for it in the desert.
#14947674
B0ycey wrote:I need water if I was in the Sahara or if I was by a lake. It is that valuable to me. But as the supply is lacking in the Sahara, I would definately pay more for it in the desert.


I didn't ask you if you would pay more for it.

I asked you if water was more valuable to you if you were DYING of thirst in the Sahara than if you were swimming in a fresh water lake.

For instance, the importance with which your regard water (this terminology coming from a dictionary definition of "value" FYI) is higher in the Sahara is it not? Especially given that death is immanent without it? While, the importance with which you regard water while swimming in a fresh water lake would be significantly lower, correct?
#14947675
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I asked you if water was more valuable to you if you were DYING of thirst in the Sahara than if you were swimming in a fresh water lake.


I guess it does as value is down to necessity. So yes, it does become more valuable the more my life depends on it as it happens. But the price is still down to demand. If I have a thousand saleman offering a bottle of water at the same time, the price will shorten considerably regardless if my life depends on it or not. So they cannot be the same thing. Everything in context.
#14947718
B0ycey wrote:I guess it does as value is down to necessity. So yes, it does become more valuable the more my life depends on it as it happens.


Good so far.

B0ycey wrote:But the price is still down to demand.


Correct.

B0ycey wrote:If I have a thousand saleman offering a bottle of water at the same time, the price will shorten considerably regardless if my life depends on it or not.


Sure, but price is determined by market value which is the relation between supply and demand, your necessity is but a really high demand and the 1000 salesman is a high supply, so the price could be lower, but only because of these salesman competing for your business as a rich dying man in the desert who needs water. However, lets say these 1000 salesman know how high the demand is (that is, your desperation) and the lowest price ended up being $1500.00 for a bottle of water, would you still pay it if you were dying of thirst?

Of course you would, so price is related to value, if the seller knows how much you value the water, they will likely adjust price accordingly, for price is a market indicator of what people typically value products at. Which is what my definition argues.

The value of water is based on YOU as the potential consumer, you impute value based either on needs or desires.

However, price is a measurement for value, generally speaking, in the broader market.

Indeed, that value is not fixed purely to necessity can be easily demonstrated:

Can you biologically survive without your wife or child? Yes, thus it is not biologically necessary to have them, so according to your definition such persons would have ZERO value.

Obviously that is horseshit.

Value is the level of importance that your attribute to something, and in the market, that is measured in terms of price.
#14947728
I say that the value of a product or service, whatever it actually turns out to be, is provided by the labor that went into it's creation or use whether made by one person or several.

So the price of an object, however determined, that should return back to those who made it possible.
#14947734
annatar1914 wrote:whatever it actually turns out to be, is provided by the labor that went into it's creation or use whether made by one person or several.


Terrible position. You really need to purge this communist streak that lingers.

I addressed this view in TLTE:

These are bad objections though, as (1) the labor theory of value seems to ignore marginal utility which would imply that product value is imputed to it by the consumer, for an Iphone, in spite of the labor that went into it, is quite worthless on a desert island with no service or wifi; whereas, a puddle of water is worth more than the finest gold array.

1b. Some of this confusion seems to come from the mutation of Marxist thought out of earlier classical economists regarding the notion of intrinsic value and the idea that labor is what increases a product's marketability. Locke argued that "labor" was part of what made something appropriated (previously unclaimed) into "private-property;" however, this does not imply that something made into property by labor would then have market value purely in virtue of the labor put into it.

For instance, if I scoop some unclaimed shit out of an open latrine and fashion it into a sculpture of George W. Bush; that input of labor into the unclaimed resource material makes that shit-statue of Bush my property; however, its value is determined by the market (potential and actual consumers), if no one wants to buy my shit-statue of President Bush, then the statue is essentially worthless (entirely lacking market value) in spite of how much labor I may have put into making it.

This is how value actually works in economics.

(2) The objection that the laborer cannot withdraw from the market is just as spurious as the argument that an owner cannot withdraw from the labor market and your argument seems to apply wildly different standards which appear to equivocate on what it means to "withdraw." For the employer, you use the term "withdraw" in a practical and local sense, but in regards to the laborer, you use the the term "withdraw" in a universal or absolute (total) sense.

If labor is an international matter (a global reality), then hiring foreigners does not seem to be an argument that can support the claim that an employer can actually withdraw from the market (whereas a laborer can't), quite the opposite in fact, for by hiring foreigners an employer isn't really withdrawing from the labor market now is he?; Thus, in the same manner that an employer could simply "hire" someone else; likewise a laborer could simply "work for someone else" or even go into business for himself or become a self-sustaining farmer et al.

2b. However, if we were to speak in absolute and not "practical terms" neither the employer nor the laborer could withdraw from the market entirely without having to change their actual job titles. If an employer is not going to employ laborers anymore then he is no longer able to be an employer, and if a laborer is not going to work for an employer anymore than he is hardly a laborer anymore. Whether this implies starvation for either of them is entirely dependent on whether they pursue alternatives, if not, both may very well die and that would be a perfectly reasonable and fair market result given their decisions.


viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8&start=247700

I also responded to Saeko's responses on this point as well, you should check it out.

I would like to see your argument for labor theory of value from Scripture....I have a couple of texts in mind that seem to contradict it right off the bat.
#14947736
Value and Price are two completely different things. They are not interchangeable.

Value
the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

Price
the amount of money expected, required, or given in payment for something.

You value a friendship, but you can't really put a price on it.
#14947747
@Victoribus Spolia


Terrible position. You really need to purge this communist streak that lingers.


You may infer my friend that whatever I still am, I am at least not yet persuaded to be of the Austrian School of Economics. ;) :D

Note that I do draw a distinction between ''Price'' and ''Value''. I haven't read ''Capital'' in ages, but I'm not certain if Marx doesn't draw that distinction either. What he does say in essence as I recall, is that whatever the price is, it is owed back to the laborers who created the product sold because of it's value.


I addressed this view in TLTE:



viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8&start=247700

I also responded to Saeko's responses on this point as well, you should check it out.


I did so, but I have my own take on the matter, related to your next comment;

I would like to see your argument for labor theory of value from Scripture....I have a couple of texts in mind that seem to contradict it right off the bat.


I'd be happy to do so, but since I was intending to dive into economics next in my ''traditionalism...communism'' thread, I'd prefer to do that there if that's alright. Since the next stage of what I want to discuss is Anarcho-Capitalism and the next stage of history, I think it would work there. Is that ok?
#14947757
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Of course, no problem. Responding to you on there is on my to-do list.


Good, because the fate of the world depends on our conversation :D

I'm only slightly being facetious, as to negotiate the coming series of crises, people need to be made aware of what's at stake.
#14947760
annatar1914 wrote:Good, because the fate of the world depends on our conversation


:lol:

annatar1914 wrote:I'm only slightly being facetious, as to negotiate the coming series of crises, people need to be made aware of what's at stake.


No disagreement here.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
Very Serious People

I don't think he could survive Stalinism. Why […]

You're such a great feminist-communist stereotype,[…]

EU-BREXIT

I don't know about the others, but at least Honda[…]

a trace gas has increased from .025% to .04% ove[…]