I predict a nonzero number of people reading this will not find it enlightening or insightful. The exact verbiage involves some profanity, but I ask the forbearance of the Glibertariat.
I frequently ruminate on why I don’t understand other people, and speculate on how they might have come to some rather bizarre conclusions. While often fruitless, it does exercise the neurons, and leave pieces of dross lying around the brain pan like this one. It seems to me how one views the world can imply a great deal about how one sees value. I think, at a basic level, there are two ways of looking at value. I’m going to dub them the Theory of Absolute Value, and the Theory of Relative Value.
The names more or less contain all there is to know about the core of the theories. Absolute value means that if something has value, that value is the same, for everyone. It is a very easy thing to intuit, especially when you look at how a child is taught about money. “This piece of cotton and linen with ink on it is worth something. If you go to the store, you can trade it for other things.” Since that value is fairly consistent, it’s easy to infer it’s worth the same to everybody. And with prices being fairly consistent, it’s not hard to make the leap to value being intrinsic.
In of itself this intuitive leap doesn’t harm the person’s ability to function. But when you start to draw logical conclusions from it, things begin to look different. If the value is absolute, then that value can be determined objectively, and centrally. Also, there is no such thing as a mutually beneficial trade. Either both parties break even, or one side gets cheated. But what of artisans? How does a cobbler take pieces of leather that don’t seem to have much value and make a shoe that does? Clearly this means the labor is adding something, and that labor has a value. But then that labor’s value must also be the same in all cases. So in any exchange of services, you’re going to end up with one party fleecing the other, or a grudging lack of gain on either side. From there it’s easy to look at a business and conclude that the only way it could be making a profit was if it was cheating its customers, employees, suppliers, or any combination of the three.
But why would so many people willingly participate in a system where they’re losing out or barely breaking even most of the time? Clearly they must not have a choice. Before you know it, you’ve gone from a simple intuitive inference to chanting anti-capitalist slogans.
Backing up to the beginning, the alternative proposition is the Theory of Relative Value. It supposes that value is not intrinsic but subjective and situational. Our cobbler may have made a fantastic shoe, but if it’s a size ten, it’s too small for my feet, so I’m not going to value it a whole lot. Likewise, those pieces of inked cotton and flax don’t themselves have value, beyond the ability to facilitate exchange. Once nothing intrinsically has value, but some measure of utility, it becomes easy to see mutually advantageous exchanges where both sides might walk away satisfied with the result.
But if everything is relative, it is impossible to determine an objective value. Not for those shoes. Not for an undeveloped piece of land. Not even for yellow-hued, chemically resistant metal. This causes problems then for doing things centrally. And that business? Well, it’s entirely possible that it can turn a profit without cheating the customers, suppliers, or employees.
The thing is, if your brain has wired in the Theory of Absolute Value, then the Theory of Relative Value becomes almost alien to it. This conclusion, I fear, is drawn almost entirely from my own thought processes. I passed economics, so logically I can figure out that the Theory of Relative Value more accurately reflects reality. But intuitively, I still jump to Absolute Value. The initial reaction of, “Why would anyone buy that?” betrays the old childhood pathways still in use. Because it still makes no sense why anyone pays a dime for a Jackson Pollock splatter, or Florida real estate.
Comments
270 responses to “UnCivil’s Theories on Value”
Ahh, nice and quiet in here.
I liked this post UCS. I think if you will allow me to go off on a tangent and quote the saying “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and point out value is the same and hence, likely to be situational, it might help people understand that while we are hard wired to want things simple (absolute value), they often are not.
STEVE SMITH HAVE TWO THEORY VALUE –
1. “THE VALUE OF A THING IS WHAT THAT THING WILL BRING.”
2. IS FUN TO RAPE OR EAT? THEN VALUABLE!
Maybe you should teach Karla Marx these important items and she will stop saying all her stupid shit. And beware of sticking it in crazy Mr. SMITH!
I’m partial to the phrase “everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it”, which expresses the same sentiment you’re going for.
Most values are relative (more accurately most things are good as means), but some are absolute (more accurately some things are ends in themselves). It is generally accepted that all physical things fall into the first category, and only the very highest order concepts (or possibly only one) fall into the latter. Virtually all of moral philosophy is concerned with arguing about this.
Gold will always be worth a lot. But when some guy tells you he wants a bar of gold for that bottle of water you need so you don’t die in the dessert sun, I suspect that gold value is meaningless compared to the loss of your life.
Gold is a physical item. It has value only as a means to whatever end you are trying to achieve. That is not to say that all physical items are equal as means, just that as you said, it isn’t an end itself. Life is actually one of the higher order things that is subject to debate. Is life actually an end itself? The one concept that is pretty clearly an end is happiness, but then you have to define happiness. Life and liberty are obviously very important, but are they important in themselves? Or because they are necessary to happiness? Obviously these questions are vitally important, but are they important in themselves or merely means to provide clever people with a way to live well and be respected without working?
I am so tempted to post a titty-link here.
*ahem* I don’t have anything to disagree with. I’d only amplify that part of the relative theory of value mindset is then learning that since people value different things differently, its okay for them to like things I don’t and I feel less desire to control it. It also helps understand that if someone is spending money on something dumb doesn’t really negatively impact me.
What’s stopping you?
Actually, them valuing stupid things is a good thing to me. Less competition for the stuff I like.
And with prices being fairly consistent, it’s not hard to make the leap to value being intrinsic. i i don’t see how this can be when a fad can hike prices real quick.
By the time most people jump ona fad, the price change has already happened. And after the fad dies down, people quickly forget.
-1 fidget spinner
-200 pogs
-all the MTG cards I collected and carefully curated as a teenager, spending just about all my allowance money. Given away because I couldn’t stand the sight of the boxes anymore.
I don’t even know where my non-rare cards went to… lost them through moves. But I did finance a trip to a con by selling my full set (40) of dual lands back in the day.
Our cobbler may have made a fantastic shoe, but if it’s a size ten, it’s too small for my feet, so I’m not going to value it a whole lot. – bragging about foot size?
Not really, I’m just annoyed at how few options I have in thirteen wide.
I’m a 13 reg but because of toes that don’t align perfectly I wear a 14 reg. Because so few people wear 14s they are often sale priced and as a thrifty (cheap) old guy I’ll opt for the 14 that doesn’t bother the toes.
STEVE SMITH UNMASKED!
Without this site, I would be utterly unaware of just how much bigfoot media/paraphernalia exists in this world.
I don’t know how I feel about that.
Just pray you never run into STEVE SMITH man
Look at Bigfoot over here.
JK
/size 9, and that’s being generous
ISTR there’s a bi-modal distribution of Glibs. Half us us are towards the elegant, compact side, the other half are great lumbering oafs.
I think it’s more like robust versus gracile.
(notes ‘gracile’ for future use)
I’m both robust and on the compact side. More Franco Columbu than Arnold Schwarzenegger. But not as jacked.
#metoo
I might add that my less than average stature doesn’t seem to carry over to my greater than average girth.
So. Not robust or gracile 🙁
At my fighting weight (which I’m currently over but getting closer to by the day) I’m 6’2″ 200 lbs. I’m basically the average NFL quarterback without the talent or salary.
If the shoe is really that great, cut a deal with the cobbler and open a shoe store.
Common value and private value would be a better way of explaining, I think.
Please elaborate, because I’m drawing a blank as to your intended meaning.
Common value is something where the value is the same to everyone involved – canonical example is an oil lease. The amount of oil under the ground doesn’t change depending on identity, and it has a market value – thus the lease has the same value to everyone. Paintings are private value – you think it’s ugly, I think it’s beautiful, the value depends on identity. Most things are a mix – Picasso painting – you may think it’s ugly, but know that others will pay for it . So there is a shared common value and an additional private value. (All of this is auction theory)
The amount of oil under the ground doesn’t change depending on identity, and it has a market value – thus the lease has the same value to everyone.
Assuming they all have the same or similar extraction and mid-stream costs.
And assuming someone doesn’t find another large deposit that makes the value of oil (because of more supply than demand) less.
That lease is valued on the future revenue stream, so it’s price will vary based on your projecrions of future oil prices (and the amount of extractable oil).
i would say this is more like fungible or not
That’s why you ventilate dark, enclosed spaces. You don’t want it getting all fungible.
I contest that the common value isn’t. If buyer and seller value a good or item the same, you’re never going to get a sale, because you won’t get to a rpice point where both think they stand to benefit. By very definition, the person doing the selling must value the good being sold less than the price point and the buyer more. Just adding more potential buyers who have similar value perspectives doesn’t change that relative valuation requirement. The lease most certainly does not have the same value for everyone, as the number of potential participants who walk away or never come to the table is unknown.
Ah, but you assume they actually know the value. Rather, they all have estimates of the value (in the lease example, of ground readings that they use to estimate number of barrels of oil). This is actually what leads to the winner’s curse, where the winner pays too much.
Tulip, there’s several board games that use auction mechanics as the prime decision points in the game (Medici, Modern Art, Container). You quickly learn who’s good at calculating the value (as end game points), and who is not.
Common value is something where the value is the same to everyone involved – canonical example is an oil lease.
I’d argue that an oil lease has a very different and lower value to me than to Exxon. I don’t know the first thing about oil extraction, and I don’t have the tools and equipment available to profitably extract the oil. 150 acres of Oklahoma grasslands with oil under the ground is worth almost nothing to me, thus why I don’t buy it at market rates.
In fact, the whole point of a demand curve is that the market price eliminates some of the potential buyers.
But you don’t have demand for an oil lease – to have demand one must be ready and able to purchase. You are not.
At $1 I am. That puts me on the demand curve.
Ah, I see, you’ve wandered off into actual economics. That, this is not.
You’re asking how to get to where they agree on a sale. That is economics.
Socialism makes em all oil barons, baby!
|value|
I thought it would be (((value)))
He’s not asking for the jewish value, he’s asking for the absolute value of value.
That depends on the evaluator, doesn’t it?
No, but it makes it really hard to tell your debits from your credits.
*suddenly government budgeting makes sense*
|vodka|
So if you drink Absolut you still have the same amount of Absolut because as an absolute quantity of Absolut negatives and positive are disregarded?
Ask a crack head and sober person what the value of a crack rock is and you get two different prices.
private value
But the supply chain is always working on Common Value.
See, I can tell you never listened to Thomas Sowell’s audiobook version of Basic Economics. Because otherwise as you ruminated you’d hear his voice in your head saying: value (or pricing) is only useful when discussing how to allocate (relatively) scare resources between two or more competing options or parties.
Theory of Absolute Value can’t apply to anything economically, although in a broader context, it might be that a principle like “inalienable right to liberty” in some ways exempts or excludes certain things from economic transactions.
It was one of those brain droppings that emerged from trying to figure out why people were able to sincerely believe communist blather. It’s only a theory of worldview, and like all theories, open to challenge.
Nothing has any value until some one wants it. Now we’re just haggling over the price.
That’s what I said to her…..
scare resources
I’ll give you 5 bucks for that fright wig.
“…intuitively, I still jump to Absolute Value.”
Whut? Why?
*shrugs*
If I knew why I might be able to do more than consciously remind myself of facts to the contrary.
I can think of a couple of reasons. You walk in a store and you see fixed prices tagged to things. As Brett says above ideas of absolute value apply to people’s rights or equality before the law or in religion in the eyes of God. Of course, none of those things are true but if you are exposed to those all of your life it might be a natural way to think.
But wouldn’t sales (especially clearance sales) break down that view of absolute value? Item X was being sold for $100 yesterday, but today it’s being sold for $80.
Of course. Those fixed prices are an illusion. We find less friction operating on fixed prices rather than a barter system here. Thus the illusion of absolute value.
I was thinking why so many, including myself to some degree, intuitively jump to the theory of absolute value and what might reinforce that train of thought.
Item X was being sold for $100 yesterday, but today it’s being sold for $80.
“The 5-foot tall one was $300, marked down to $100. That’s like, $200 worth of chicken for free.”
On one hand, she wasted $100.
On the other hand I will credit the artist for creating something more artistic than most of the modern ‘art’ I’m assailed with at work. (Damn you Nelson Rockefeller!)
It depends on how much entertainment she received from watching her husband yell, and the jokes that have continued for years were worth.
At least it wasn’t towels.
A neighbor of mine actually has a big metal chicken in the yard. It is bigger than the one in the picture appears. I now wonder if she is the blogger.
She’s in Texas, somewhere.
I believe Beyoncé (the chicken) is on the edge of the property now and the neighbors added a flying pig on her head.
Visited friends in Omaha and walked past this place. You can see their giant chicken on the right (TW FB)
https://www.facebook.com/irondecorandmore/photos/a.822228314463497/822227737796888/?type=3&theater
Hilariously, they also had this pic: https://www.facebook.com/irondecorandmore/photos/a.822228314463497/2025459617473688/?type=3&theater
Now, this is a politician one can get behind. He didn’t wast time fucking around and gave the voters what they deserved immediately.
They deserved to have their pancreases shanked?
Nice indirection there. Well played.
Yes, but what about people who post bad links?
Retry.
With a head covering could pass for a Minnesoda rep
I do not agree with this. One need not fall back on theories of absolute value to reject a specific value proposition. Intellectually you know that the reason someone buys those things and everything else you disagree with is because they subjectively value those things more than the alternatives available . That still leaves you plenty of room to question the validity of their subjective value judgements.
See while all value is relative that does not imply all value calculations are valid. In a lot of ways this is similar to a post modern critique, arguing that since there is no objective criteria on which to judge value that it means that all value calculations are valid. Not true, while there can be no universal objective standard against which to judge and therefore determine the correct value it is entirely possible to falsify specific value calculations as being illogical and/or counterproductive
Would you like to buy my tiger-repelling rock?
is it big enough to knock you out if I hit you with it?
Nah, Jackson Pollock represents the breakdown of capitalism. No one reasonable would hang one, let alone pay for it. Maybe if Pollock paid me to hang it, but he couldn’t afford to, not in a world in which capitalism works, because he’d be destitute.
I’ll buy it to sell it. Who am I to judge others’ taste?
I spend a lot of time on Bring a Trailer watching car auctions. The comments section is hilarious – “That’s a ridiculous price! What a ripoff!” Uh no, dumbass. The car is perfectly priced because IT FUCKING SOLD!!
Absent fraud, it’s perfect.
Willing buyer-willing seller. I worked at an auction house for a while and would buy stuff myself that I thought was going too cheap. That’s the reason my house is full of junk that no one else wanted.
I dated a girl that had this problem. She was a serious hoarder… In the end I couldn’t deal with the mess..
There’s relative value and there’s the perception of relative value. This is where regulators, socialists, etc. get tied up when talking about free markets. Free markets are efficient because I know best of anyone how much I value something. That’s not to say that I value things in ways that accurately reflect their actual value to me, just that I know what I want more than you know what I want. You might know what I need more than I do, but that’s not the question at hand.
For instance, smoking is bad for me, and in the sense that it’s literally burning money that makes me less healthy, it’s not worth very much. However, I want a cigarette pretty badly, and so I value it highly on that basis. Put another way, a person in an office somewhere charged with deciding what I should eat for dinner might say I the thing I ought to have is a spinach salad with grilled chicken. On the other hand, I’d much rather have a pizza. Generally, the former should be worth more to me since it’s arguably healthier, but I’m a glutton and so would much prefer to tuck into an entire pepperoni pizza, flirting with the beetus or not.
Externally, or objectively maybe, those are bad choices, and that’s why free markets don’t work; they can’t be relied upon to produce optimal outcomes. Subjectively, however, if I’m left to judge value on my own and make decisions accordingly, I will always get the thing I want most with the resources I have available, which is why free markets work best of all.
This is why the auction model is so useful. Value is subjective and situational, and there is no better proof than one individual jacking up the bid until everybody else drops out. There could be some guy who says, “That would look cool bolted to the wall in my garage, so I can admire it while I drink beer.” There may be somebody with a generalized recognition of it as a store of value (If I buy that fender, maybe I can find somebody scouring the Hemmings Motor News for one who will pay me double for it).
Or it may have highly specific usefulness specific to a particular bidder (I need that fender to finish putting my ’37 Ford together, and I’ll be goddamed if I’m gonna let anybody else waltz out of here with it!). I don’t want to bid against that guy.
See: American Pickers.
I just wanted to be specific.
You lost the auction on your garage decor, didn’t you?
Once upon a time, I was wandering around an “antiquarian book fair” and I spotted a specific book, by a specific author. I wanted it. I said to myself, “I am willing to pay fifty bucks for this,” as I plucked it off the shelf. The price was thirty bucks.
I made twenty dollars!
Not spending is earning?
From an economic standpoint yes. He expended $30 in value to gain $50 in value he is now $20 richer.
Important thing to remember is that economic is not accounting and economic value != financial value, from a financial standpoint he is probably $20 or more poorer as he would be unlikely to be able to resell that book for anywhere near what he paid for it.
Ding ding ding
According to my ex it was. I could not remember how often when I asked why she spent $800 on candles, she would tell me cause she got $400 off for doing that and saved us all that cash….
Do you really use nearly 11,000 candles?
There was a point when my hall closet had over 20 different containers of foaming soap. Every time the girlfriend went to the store that sold them, they would be on sale (3 for $x), so she would buy them (since they were on sale). After losing over a shelf of space in the closet to scented soaps (that she can’t even smell…) I had to ask her to please, for the love of all that is holy and unholy, stop buying more soap until at least half of what was in the closet was used.
This was several years ago, there has been no new foaming soap since.
She used to go up to Yankee Candle and fill her SUV up with that shit. When she moved out for the divorce she took 8 boxes of candles out of the attic with her…
Every time someone mentions Yankee Candle, I think of Damn Yankee Chloroform Scented Candles
Is your name Ricky Ricardo by any chance?
The math checks out
–CBO accountant
You know I used to tell her that we were not the government and able to pretend there wouldn’t be financial consequences if we did shit like that…
Yes according to my SIL.
A grad school colleague use to play that game with his wife a la how much would you pay for this? then not letting her buy it if it was less than the sticker. He’s not married anymore.
Because of these games? Or cause she found someone willing to buy it for her?
*nod and clap*
Yes, my wife would not be happy with that game either.
It seems an easy game to win though. It’s not like she would have to give up the difference between her willing to pay amount and the sticker price. It would get annoying to need to keep answering the question though.
My wife will come home from some shopping and ask how much do you think I paid for this?
Now, I have to be careful here. Too little and I’ve gone under what she paid or put little value on it. Too much and I’ve insulted her by thinking she would pay that much for item.
All considered though she is excellent on buying the needed things for a good price. I have no complaints about the stuff she purchases.
Good to be married to a wise women.
My wife puts stuff in the shopping cart that doesn’t look like a store of value to me but I never say a word. Somethings are not worth the discussion, besides she might go in the garage and see my fishing equipment. Besides some women may need 80-90 pocketbooks, who am I to say?. The good news is she is beginning to give things away, as I am, that are not being used.
Women seem to need more shoes and bags than any decent person would ever need. This is why I am surprised they are pro socialism when people like Bernie point out socialism is all about limited choices/numbers for all…
Maybe they like socialism because if there are only 3 bags to choose from owning all three keeps the judgmental sisterhood from harassing them. Until someone starts bedazzling, and then it is right back to them eating each other up over this nonsense.
“Decent” and “need” are immaterial to the acquisition of things one wants.
I don’t NEED 5 different nailers, 2 different circ saws, 14 hand saws, sanders, grinder, air compressor, Sawzall, chain saw, all those organizational tubs, and that pile of wood over there, but they sure are fun to play with.
Touche!
You lost the auction on your garage decor, didn’t you?
No, but that guy waiting for his copy of Hemmings every month evaded a good STEVE SMITH-ing.
STEVE SMITH ONLY RAPE CAR ONCE. OK, TWICE.
Muffler job?
Dual exhaust.
Is STEVE SMITH’s nickname Mr. Meineke?
Dude. MIdas. He’s got the golden bad touch.
Trust the STEVE SMITH touch? Erm… OK…
Not spending is earning?
If Beto can do it, so can I.
Theory of Absolute Value can’t apply to anything economically, although in a broader context, it might be that a principle like “inalienable right to liberty” in some ways exempts or excludes certain things from economic transactions.
Some people will surrender more liberty in the pursuit of safety than others.
All right, which member of the Glib community submitted this to “The Federalist” as opposed to SP like our social contract demands?
http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/13/every-time-democrats-talk-want-vote-trump-twice/
I don’t think the Dem candidates will be gathering many votes from the voters who grew up in eastern Europe, Cuba or Venezuela.
He doesn’t mention Gary Johnson as one of the alternatives he could have chosen besides Trump, but then again “colorless non-entity” applied to Johnson’s 2016 run as much as it did to Jeb Bush’s.
I feel sorry for all those leppos out there who just fell to pieces when he othered them.
Meh. Like any media-hyped gaffe it overshadows everything else. I don’t care that Johnson didn’t know what Aleppo was when asked off the cuff; I care that he couldn’t articulate a consistent foreign policy that would keep us out of Syria (and a host of other countries).
Who said anything about Syria or foreign policy?
I’m talking about those poor people with leprosy, who’ve been shunned and maligned throughout history. You know, the leppos.
Was Leppo the Marx brother that wasn’t in “Animal Crackers”?
I care more that he picked Weld as his running mate. I was undecided how to vote right up till the LP VP candidate basically endorsed Clinton.
Why not? They’re [ETHNIC MINORITY], and Democrats speak the language of [ETHNIC MINORITY], and as well know [ETHNIC MINORITY] voters vote for people who look like them or speak their language, actual ideas or policies be damned. And somehow that’s not a racist thing to believe.
Having read most of the piece, I can see where he’s coming from, but I think the other side of the coin should be considered as well. Trump is driving the Democrats crazy. There’s a feedback loop here, between the Democrats doing somewhat crazy stuff*, reacting to Trump reacting to them, and then getting even crazier. The self-correcting mechanism that should put a check on this loop is gone, and that’s entirely the Democrats’ fault. But Trump is, at this point, both a causal and symptomatic part of the cycle.
The biggest problem, and this is going utterly unaddressed in the morass of crazy that is the Trump-and-Democrats show, is that the Democrat-leaning establishment tried to throw the election. Whether Trump is a good President or not, or deserves the criticism he gets, or is the primary reason for all the crazy now, is immaterial to the fact that before anyone could say they had a reason to hate Trump, the powers-that-be were trying to undermine the Constitutional and democratic order. And they have gone utterly and completely unpunished since then (people getting fired with no other consequences notwithstanding). I don’t think, at this point in time, it matters which way you vote, because nobody is serious about preventing this from happening again.
* = Back in 2016, Clinton ran to the right of Sanders. She’s no doubt “evolved” since then, but the level of crazy was more contained than it is today.
I completely agree with your second paragraph. That’s the reason I’m very pessimistic about the future. This is one of the biggest–if not the biggest–political scandals in the history of the country but the reaction is just meh.
I agree with both of you. That the POTUS, members of his cabinet, and the Fed LE & Intel communities were flat out trying to subvert an election is horrifying. The same media that worships the memory of Watergate coverage flat out ignores that misconduct is disheartening.
Obama supporting HRC is to be expected and is part of politics. The rapid ratcheting up the politcal weaponization of the LE/Intel and courts from harassing little people by the IRS to subverting justice to enable HRC to continue to run and the tripling down pre and post election is banana republic grade corruption. Yet crickets by the press and the Dems response is “But, but, but, Trump!”
You know what’s worse than the Democrat reaction? The Republican reaction. The Congressional Republicans–with a few exceptions–for all practical purposes support subverting the election by the Deep State. They support the Mueller “investigation”, further sanctions on Russia for “interfering in our elections” and so on. There’s nobody in power or with a megaphone who is appalled by this. The only exception is tweeting Trump. That’s not enough.
Is Trump driving them crazy or goading them into revealing how nuts they really are? Even in the 80’s I thought most liberal Democrats were just closet-socialists. Now they are saying it out in the open.
For the record, I was not born in Russia. Not me.
You literally have a bear in your avatar. You’re not fooling anyone, Russian bot
Hrm, he IS strong like bear…
Stronk
^This this thisity this this this.
Voting for Trump isn’t like picking between several new cars and getting one that sucks. It’s like deciding that, if you’ve got to get a tattoo because you’ve lost a bet, you’ll get the barbed wire armband because it’s not as bad as getting a dick tattooed on your cheek. For the record, I voted Johnson, but this time around I will likely vote for Trump. At this point it’s not even that I can’t think of individual Democrats that I wouldn’t mind seeing in office, it’s that the Democrats have gone so far off the rails the party has to be burnt to the ground and scattered to the wind. There cannot be any impression given that any part of their platform is in any way acceptable, in whole or in part.
I think the reality is that prices lie on a continuum between “absolute” and “subjective” value, as you term them. Most commodities sold on the market are exchanged in a narrow band of prices; this band itself can shift over time and place, but e.g. there’s not a whole lot of variance in gasoline prices around me. Competition and preference drive these prices in part, but so do the inputs of raw materials, capital, and labor on the supply side, and the raw ability of local consumers to pay at all on the demand side. I think the key point is that there is no such thing as innate or intrinsic value, but there is still a stickiness to prices that isn’t fully captured in my opinion by the notion that prices are set by mutual agreement of buyer and seller. Neither side has limitless leverage, and when two unrelated buyers or two unrelated sellers come to similar conclusions, there is another force (if only in the metaphorical sense, like the invisible hand of the market) at foot.
s/at foot/afoot/
I think the reality is that prices lie on a continuum between “absolute” and “subjective” value, as you term them.
This makes sense because, by and large, producers aren’t going to sell for less than production cost, which sets an anchor price.
Or, if I had finished reading your comment I’d have seen that you made the point already.
Yep. Of course, sometimes businesses do sell at a loss, whether to clear out inventory that wasn’t selling fast enough (turning a bigger loss into a smaller one), or to drive sales of other products (the retail loss leader). So even the production cost isn’t an absolute limit. But it’s still pretty strong.
“there is still a stickiness to prices that isn’t fully captured in my opinion by the notion that prices are set by mutual agreement of buyer and seller. ”
You should probably distinguish between asking prices and realized prices.
Going further one could distinguish between commodity goods (not a lot of variance in the value added by labor) versus engineered goods (more variance in the value added by labor).
Supply/Demand.
Exactly.
People too often say “value” when they often just mean “prices”.
“Clearly this means the labor is adding something, and that labor has a value. But then that labor’s value must also be the same in all cases. ”
You’re completely ignoring skill here. I can spend two hours making a shoe, and a skilled cobbler can spend two hours making a shoe. If the “value” of labor is absolute, then the shoes should sell for the same price, although the cobbler’s shoe will last two years while mine will last roughly two days. Relative value for the win.
The fallacy of the “labor theory of value”. The skilled cobbler’s shoe is worth more because, as you say, he/she is putting years of experience and skill into creating something of very high quality. It doesn’t matter if it takes two hours or two minutes, it’s the end result that counts. Effort itself only has value to the extent that it produces something of value, and in that regard only has value to the person expending the effort.
The only “value” on my brain right now is the tax refund dollar amount that I just got done computing. It’s pretty hefty – unless I fucked up. We’ll see what the Feds come back with.
My daughter got a huge refund. I owed again.
Semi-related: my friend (who works for the IRS) posted on FB earlier how the withholding formulae promulgated by the IRS result in (apparently penalty-worthy) under-withholding for (some?) taxpayers, and don’t match with the IRS-published tax calculators. Kinda explains why I went from a ~$1000 refund to ~$250 payment. Also, great job, gov’t employees.
And… they accepted it. Heh, suckers.
/JK, Donald
I owed for the first time in years, because I corrected my deductions since they were taking too much out of my check. Then because my wife worked part of the year, we made it into the ‘fat cat and elitist who need to pay their fair share’ bracket, and the tax on our top zillion dollars got the ‘fair share’ increase. My pay day is much bigger, but no more big refund. Next year, I’d expect my deduction corrections should put me closer to the correct deduction level and I’ll probably get back a small refund.
I mentioned a couple days go my wife’s withholding was way too low (like, 9%), so we’re writing a fat check (and adjusting her w-4).
Thanks, honey :-/
My withholdings were low because 2018 was my first full year of employment at this job. I’m right on the border of itemize/standard deduction, so hopefully as I pay off the student loan, my refund will stabilize as I switch back to standard deduction.
We got a refund, but that was only because of the doubling of the standard deduction. Otherwise, we would’ve owed.
Yeah, I took the standard deduction for the first time in years because it’s now greater than the state taxes I paid.
Since I sold my last remaining property, my standard is now quite a bit lower. No chillins, no property. I am free! Free at last! Well, I can pretend.
Speaking of Value. Time has some.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/13/age-of-four-day-week-workers-productivity
I don’t know why people like the three day weekend so much. Unless you are traveling I wouldn’t think that three days off in a row was that valuable.
One semester in college I had M,Tu,Th,F classes (8am and 5pm lectures each day) That was a useful distribution. Weekend, two days of class, a day off, two more days of class, next weekend. It kept the classes in small digestible bunches, gave you a week day to do other things. The usual M-Th with only crap classes on Friday (no professor wanted to lecture on Friday) wasn’t as relaxing.
I go to work to get away from home.
I go home to get away from work.
To me, the problem with a 4 day week is that those are really long days and most people are already distracted and past peak performance levels after about 6 hours. The last 2 hours are probably distracted looking at the clock and half doing my widgets time. Not sure what the studies say. But I bet I can find one to confirm your opinion no matter what your opinion is.
They seem to be agitating for 4 eight-hour days.
I don’t want to click through to the guardian. Is that the journalist’s opinion, or are they quoting some other activist?
I didn’t read the whole thing but it mentions “extra day off for the same pay”. Plus, it’s the Guardian, so I know they’re all for it without having to read it.
Who do they think they are? The French?
” I wouldn’t think that three days off in a row was that valuable”
*tilts head confusingly like dog*
I couldn’t figure it out either.
Friday = doctor appointments
Yeah, “doctor appointments”:)
Which now would be on Wednesday. The 2 days of work in short spurts was really easy to handle.
Break, 2 days.. Break 2 days.. was better than 3day break… 4 days work.
I say, give it a try, the mid-week break seemed better to me than the 3 day weekend most of the time.
I like to keep work days and not work days in contiguous chunks so that I can switch mindsets completely. It takes effort to go from the mindset of “I don’t have to worry about when I get up” to “I have a schedule to keep” and back again.
I really like a mid-week day off. I mean, three-day weekends are great and all but I find that the extra day kind of knocks me out of my rhythm at work.
I don’t get that, as I stated, my rhythm is more likely to be disrupted by a mid-week break.
Same here. Although, I’ve been so slammed that I haven’t taken PTO this year. I find that Fridays are the easiest because I’m burnt out and usually doing ancillary work anyway.
There are two schools of value.
1. The school that says some random chaotic market ran by hoarders and wreckers which always favors the one percent zillionaires, determines value = WRONG ANSWER
2. The morally superior school that says value is determined by our righteously appointed experts = RIGHT ANSWER
No one needs 23 choices of value. Can it be more clear?
and yet school 1 produces toilet paper that is manifestly, inarguably, one might say absolutely of higher value than school 2.
No one needs
23 choices oftoilet paper.Toilet paper is non-negotiable. You try to deprive me of that and I will take up arms against you.
In a ‘fair’ system, you’d be too busy grubbing roots for dear leader to worry about toilet paper. You’d be worrying about important stuff, like saving the planet and new green deals, or is that green new deals?
The irony that the biggest ecological disasters are in countries that had command-economies is lost on these people.
The useful idiots, yes. The leaders, no, they totally get it. They’re going to be playing Maduro while the serfs play starving Venezuelans. They know it will go that way, because it always goes that way.
Toilet paper that isn’t next to the crapper when I’m on it has 0 value, so “infinitely” would be another good adjective.
Your mom has value
$20, same as downtown.
I like a little extra service and am willing to shell out a couple more bucks for
How’d you know I’m…I mean, who do you take me for, Winston?
Lets get off the mom jokes cause I just got off your mom!
The value of nearby tissues and towels go way up in the circumstance – then crash hard.
“if you like your asshole, you can keep your asshole”
Trashy wins the internet today.
There’s a meme related to the question of value where a Keynesian and a Socialist are sword fighting over the concept of “value” with the Keynesian arguing that price is determined by cost and the Socialist arguing that value is determined by work. In the last frame an Austrian comes and impales both the Socialist and Keynesian declaring “value is determined by the consumer”.
I’d link to the meme, but I figure you all would prefer to use your imagination (also, I can’t find the meme).
by “sword fighting” you mean…?
OT: They know it’s going to be overturned so it just amounts to virtual signaling by a bunch of judges. How undignified and bush.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/03/14/sandy-hook-shooting-gunmaker-remington-can-sued-court-rules/3162168002/
the defendant’s legal bills keep piling up.. to be dumped on the plaintiff when this shit collapses.
Gunmaker Remington can be sued over marketing of rifle used in Sandy Hook shooting, court rules
That’s horseshit.
Austrian comes and impales both the Socialist and Keynesian declaring “value is determined by the consumer”.
Something like this?
I’ve been trying to find an economist that had a good debunking of MMT. So far, I haven’t. They all pretty quickly get in to the theoretical weeds.
I thought it should be pretty simple. The government can’t just print money to pay for whatever it wants, because money =/= value (or wealth, pick whatever term you like). Or maybe more fully, money cannot be exchanged for value at a fixed rate. I think that’s really hard for some people to get their heads around.
Confusing money with wealth is one of the most common mistakes people make. There’s plenty of examples of those mistakes.
MMT is based on GDP, which is a completely bullshit number. If you’re starting with bullshit, your theory is bullshit.
https://tomwoods.com/ep-38-murphy-takes-on-mmt/
https://tomwoods.com/ep-1116-debate-bob-murphy-and-dylan-moore-on-modern-monetary-theory-mmt/
You know where there won’t be any MMT apologists?
https://contrakrugman.com/ep-128-the-destructive-idiocy-of-modern-monetary-theory/
Did you read this?
https://mises.org/library/upside-down-world-mmt
“I’ve been trying to find an economist that had a good debunking of MMT.”
Economists from the Weimar Republic would have plenty to say, but they’re all dead.
Economics schmeckomomics. TW: TOS
http://reason.com/blog/2019/03/14/new-york-citys-minimum-wage-law-for-ride
Is it bad that I mentally read “TW” as “Twitter warning” now?
Understandable
But with fewer rides, they have more leisure time to pursue their passions.
I’ve been trying to find an economist that had a good debunking of MMT.
One of my primary objections is that they toss the “law of diminishing returns” right out the window, in order to make the spurious claim that the government has an infinite supply of net-positive-return projects to throw money at. Also, they say, “Just keep an eye out for inflation.”
Yeah, that’s like Yosemite Sam keeping an eye out for that streetcar. It’s nowhere to be seen until it runs over him.
Dems want background checks for ammo purchases.
https://www.guns.com/news/2019/03/14/dems-debut-national-ammo-control-bill-in-congress
An effort to close what bill’s supporters term the “ammo loophole” would make mandatory background checks the nationwide norm for ammunition sales.
Under measures proposed in the House by Florida’s Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Senate by Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal, would-be ammunition buyers would have to be first vetted by the FBI’s National Instant Background Check System. The lawmakers, allied with national gun control groups, say the move to add controls to bullet sales would help save lives.
That’s horseshit.
Yuppers
“Ammo loophole”
Once again, loophole is whatever the gun grabbers didn’t ban in the last round of legislation.
“Ammo loophole”? What, that you need guns to use it?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
… how is she not behind bars?
I’ve always wanted to order a pallet of ammo…
OT: given how quickly and how often customers have had issues with the 737max8, and that it’s mostly overseas in developing countries, I’m guessing there’s some pilot interface change that’s at the root of these issues. Probably in the engine management subsystem.
I saw some guy from Boeing claiming that some of the safety protocols they added directly go against what pilots are trained to do for other planes, so when they actually fight the plane, they can cause some serious problems. I was like WTF? You create an automated protocol that contradicts existing training and disclose that AFTER a bunch of these aircraft crash? It also sounds like several people pointed this problem out to Boeing which promptly ignored that shit. Shit, I wonder how much of this is Boeing going all woke.
It’s known as the “Musk Gambit”.
MCAS is the current suspect. The MAX frame is a stretched 737. The new engines are too large to fit at the previous mounting locations so were mounted forward. This changes the balance of the aircraft and Boeing introduced the MCAS to assist with that.
That said, the runaway trim response is standard for all 737 types, including the MAX, and should have been done if that was the cause.
Eithiopean and Lion Air are two completely different airlines. Developing countries is a red herring.
CAAC, like pretty much every Chicom organ, isn’t exactly credible. They have a vested interest in giving Boeing a black eye. If Chinese pilots were truly reporting previous incidents, why did they wait until now to act?
Have they confirmed or denied the eyewitness accounts of one of the engines possibly blowing prior to the Ethiopian crash?
I don’t think so. I’ve been sticking to the a geek type websites and seen it mentioned (as witness reports, ymmv) but nothing else.
Correction, not the balance itself, but placement causes additional lift when the aircraft is pitched nose up, in turn causing further upward pitch.
https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/2779304-post18.html
*tries to remember back to aeromechanics class*
Something about center of aerodynamic pressure being too far away ( too close? ) from center of gravity causing pitch instability?
Nope, I was wrong. They’re saying it’s even more simple than that.
we need more thrust!
fucking Brooklyn Nazis strike again!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/03/14/ruth-bader-ginsburg-poster-vandalized-with-anti-semitic-profanity-swastika-brooklyn/?utm_term=.429dc5f9551e
look at the letter “B”. did a high school girl write that?
Hey they got the swastika the right way round for once!
Based on past “hate crimes” I am going to give this a 95% probability of being another hoax.
Iim putting my money on feral teenagers of unfortunate (for the racist intersectional types) ethnic heritage.
Like that angel who along with his (((foster parents))) was glowingly profiled in the NYT a couple years before he was caught defacing some synagogue last year. In Brooklyn, a similar scenario is at least as likely as “hoax”.
Too low. 99.99%.
I couldn’t use numbers we usually see come up for elections in socialist paradises without running the risk of being called out on it, so I dropped it a bit.
I didn’t know that she is one of (((them))).
Ilhan Omar knows….
Not dealing with that firewall. Why are her pictures on the subway?
Looks like an advert for another one of her hagiographies.
I’d be tempted to deface it – particularly if the People’s Trains are running late.
Hah, I just got a call from some computer telling me my SS number has been suspended due to some suspicious activity and I need to contact the office in Hyderabad and send them some gift cards to unlock it I bet… Fucking scammers and their idiot games.
Nazi!
The sad thing is people fall for those scams. I mean, FFS, how many company ask for payment in gift cards?
I wouldn’t be surprised if you are stupid enough to fall for it, they will start by asking YOU to give them your SS number so they can verify you are you…. And people will go yeah, that makes great sense… Fuck that.
I keep getting robo calls from somewhere in North Carolina. I ignore them, and every once in a while it goes to voicemail, and you can hear a fragment of a message, like “to place on the no call list”. The problem is the calls are coming from a bank of numbers so every time I block one number I get a call from another number with only the last 2 digits being different.
The numbers that are showing up on your phone are most likely spoofed. With the current phone systems, when you place an outbound call, part of what is sent is the outbound ANI (what shows up on your CallerID). It’s a huge pain in the ass, and there’s no good way to get rid of it with the current protocols. A lot of the robocalls have realized that people answer from local number more often, so they’ll mirror the area code and prefix of whatever number they’re calling.
If you do answer, never say yes or anything that can be taken as a confirmation.
I’ve come to the conclusion that unless I know the number, it goes to voicemail. It’s a bit of a pain when I’m traveling for business, but otherwise it’s working out great.
Most of my business calls are from outside MN, so it’s easier for me. The scammers all seem to use variations on my cell number.
For me, I’ve been (ab)using a feature on my cell called Call Screening. If I don’t recognize the number, I tap a button, and the person calling gets a blurb about having their call screened and to state their name and reason for the call. In real time it then displays the voice-to-text of what the person says. From there, I can either answer, end the call, or flag it as spam (which black holes that number to getting a disconnect message in the future).
I’ve been doing that too. No message, no return call.
They call my phone with fake local numbers all the time. I missed a call from a real person yesterday because it looks the same as the scams.
I’ve had two sets of spam callers. One uses the “same area code” strategy, the other spoofs area codes from all over the country.
Both fail for two simple reasons – one, I’ve had the same number for decades, and the area code isn’t the one I’m physically in. Two, I don’t give out my number to many people.
I figure if it’s real, they’ll leave a voicemail. The spammers don’t appear to,
Some of the ones using bad answering machine/live person detection on their lines have left me half messages and such. I usually only get notifications for those when I reboot my phone, as the call itself was already flagged as spam and doesn’t even provide a notification that I missed a call (because it doesn’t even ring).
That strategy only works if you don’t get new client calls.
Bingo. I get lots of work because I have an actual phone number on my website and some people like to talk to a real person.
Seems like a portion of your work is people not wanting to pay for it.
Yes, but the people who call me are invariably willing to pay and pay well.
Um, what? A never-called-me-before client can leave a voice mail. Just politely tell them in the greeting why you require leaving a message. Most people under the age of 80 understand, and anyone who feels they are too damned important to leave a voice mail are fucking assholes I don’t want to do business with anyway. If it’s a problem I’ll hire a personal call screener, which every contractor I’ve had to deal with in the last 5 years does with their “public” number, they give me their direct number once we’ve established meaningful contact.
And I reciprocate: until we’ve established meaningful contact, they get a tertiary email address and a secondary or “home” phone number with no voice mail on it. If they’re too fucking lazy to write an email or send a text message early on, that’s important information. My personal cell phone is never used for cold calls coming in nor going out.
I usually get rando older people who don’t like first communication to be by email, and they don’t understand the publishing process well enough to make themselves clear via email. I generally have to sift through what they’re saying to get to the heart of things. You can’t do that by email and they aren’t going to leave a message.
I also get people who really believe in talking to someone before hiring them and being greeted by a human instead of voice mail is a great first impression.
“I figure if it’s real, they’ll leave a voicemail.”
That’s my policy and it works pretty well. I’m like Paul Sorvino in Goodfellas with phones. I’m more likely to text or email someone, so if someone’s calling me right off the bat I’m pretty sure it’s a scam.
Value is in the eyes of the beholder.
Also, as mentioned above, supply/demand.
Value!