[FoRK] Subjective value
<jtauber at jtauber.com> on
Thu Aug 23 17:03:20 PDT 2007
Except that by introducing X, you're introducing a third object (most
likely some means of exchange like money).
If I'm placing a value of X units of money upon an object, what that
is really saying is I value the things I think I can get for X units
of money more than I value what I'm willing to give up.
So I would contend value is still a partial ordering of pairs of
things, specific to an individual and not some function (specific or
general) from something to an integer X.
On 23/08/2007, at 5:58 PM, Mark Neely wrote:
> At the risk of a tautological loop...it depends at which point you are
> measuring value.
> Let's say I place the value of X upon an object I currently own.
> You own
> a different object, which (to me) has a value of X+1. You, however,
> place the value of X upon the object you own, and value my object X+1.
> When we do a trade, we each receive an item with a perceived higher
> value than that for which we traded it. Of course, we might both think
> we got the 'better' deal, when we consider the relative value of the
> item traded with the item received, but again, this is purely
> It remains simultaneously true that both parties received equal value
> and yet traded something of lower value for something of higher value.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fork-bounces at xent.com [mailto:fork-bounces at xent.com] On
> Behalf Of
> James Tauber
> Sent: Thursday, 23 August 2007 12:09 PM
> To: Friends of Rohit Khare
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] Agreeing to agree
> Actually both buyer and seller are receiving more value than they are
> giving otherwise they wouldn't trade.
> The subjective theory of value seems so obvious to me I find it
> remarkable that people from Adam Smith to Karl Marx didn't see it.
> Although often associated with the Austrian school (which I have
> sympathies for), Demokritos of ancient Greek atomic theory fame
> suggested it back in his day.
> FoRK mailing list
More information about the FoRK