Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Bic_Cherry, Oct 8, 2019.
When you say "value", is it possible you mean to say "price"?
I already informed you that there is no such thing as intrinsic value. Value always depends on the context of a market.
And the market is individuals. So only individuals can assess the value of something?
No. Value is what a thing WOULD trade for, price is what it DID trade for. They are often close, but they are not the same thing.
How do you know what it would trade for? Are you a fortune teller?
Yes, and firms, institutions, governments, etc. who deal consensually.
Only at least two market participants, at least one of them buying and one selling, enables the market to value something.
What on earth do you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about? I didn't say I knew what things would trade for. If I did, I could quickly get very rich.
Is that like two negatives makes a positive?
You said, "Value is what a thing WOULD trade for." That implies you know what it will trade for before the trade occurs. How could you possibly know this?
So, as I said, individuals.
I think you mean to price something. The price is what the seller and buy agree on.
"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."
Quoted from The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein, this tied in with Murray Rothbard's quote of Frank Chodorov to help demonstrate how fictive entities such as "society", "government" and in this case "the market"; they intentionally obfuscate those acts of those self-responsible individuals (see pp45-48 of "For a New Liberty under "Society and the Individual" for those interested)- this can apply from everything to committing a crime ( especially by corporatists and politicians) to simple, mundane actions such as an exchange of goods and/or services such as you are discussing here.
I think this paragraph from a wiki article will shed some light on this debate:
"New classical macroeconomics, sometimes simply called new classical economics, is a school of thought in macroeconomics that builds its analysis entirely on a neoclassical framework. Specifically, it emphasizes the importance of rigorous foundations based on microeconomics, especially rational expectations".
(note the words underlined by me).
Obviously the individualist (micro) approach is what you are espousing.
In effect, you - along with classical economists generally - are excluding a significant role for government ie the public sector.
(Hence Maggie's famous piece of nonsense: "there is no such thing as society")
Academia is where all the various 'schools of economics' were/are developed; the classical school mentioned above will finally be blown away, in favour of MMT, in the next recession (since monetary policy - and public and private debt - are already maxed-out around the globe; see Ellen Brown's article)
But it CAN be part of the consolidated government sector, along with the Fed and treasury.
No....but your classical economics, on which those ideas are based, is increasingly inadequate, as global issues eg waste, pollution and ecological limits) intrude on national economies.
That's why the public sector must assume more direct responsibility for economic management.
I employ the concept of "intrinsic value" (ie, life enhancing) as a tool to dismiss the widely held fallacy that money has objective value, and as a corollary to that, I dismiss the widely held fallacy that the 'value' (read: 'utility') of money can only be determined in competitive, free, private sector markets.
So the answer to the question above is: they all have intrinsic value (at least until the relative merits of a vegetarian v. meat diet are confirmed).
You are arguing value is subjective, and I won't disagree with that from the point of view of the individual,
but OTOH the market is analogous to the objective result of an opinion survey, cf with the subjective opinions of the individuals in the survey. (Acknowledgements to <bringiton> for that insight)
I say OK, and?... btw, the Rolls Royce dealer will show you a list price that is not open to debate....
So maybe you need to consult with TedintheShed, to solve the riddle of your "societal prohibition" (of violence against your neighbour)?
I have agreed with longshot that value is subjective, only in the sense that an individual's 'preference" is subjective
Meanwhile, he/she is ignoring price setting by supply and demand, in competitive free markets.
Longshot then comments:
Earlier in the debate (several days ago) I distinguished between utility and intrinsic value; but longshot is conflating the two here.
eg money has utility but no intrinsic value, since it would be possible for a government - that has access to sufficient data - to manage production and distribution of goods and services - without use of money at all.
That should explain the apparent confusion.
Seeking some clarification:
Is the cleaner's wage at Apple headquarters always a function of a market context*?
Maybe, but certainly not in the case of a public sector worker eg it's difficult to relate the gardener's wage in a public park to a market context.
*in theory, the world's richest company ought to be able to pay its cleaners $1 million a year....
MMT thesis: there are sufficient real available resources in the US, to employ everyone (of working age) at above poverty level.
whether in the private or public sectors.
Now, given the private sector NEVER employs all available labour, then the public sector will need to set the base level wage at above poverty level, consistent with the productive capacity of the economy.
As with my previous post, this should (again) explain the apparent confusion.
Eggheads and bureaucrats running the show, how fun. Or are these new and different selfless breed of eggheads and bureaucrats, with crystal balls given them by God himself?
If money doesn't have intrinsic value and it's value can't be determined by the market, then what kind of value does it have?
Yes, you've said things have intrinsic value, so I know you will say they all have intrinsic value. That's telling me nothing. I want to know which has more more intrinsic value: a package of beef jerky or a bag of peanuts?
There are only individuals that value things. Nothing else can, because nothing else is sentient.
Are you referring to market prices? Yes, market prices are an objective measure, because they are a historical fact: This car was sold on this date by this person to this person for $x.00. That's is an objective fact.
No, the private sector still creates the goods and services; the public sector is merely the necessary employer of last resort, since the private sector NEVER employs everyone of working age, at above poverty level wages, at any stage of the business cycle.
The same value as 'points' to keep score in a football match. Note: you can't run out of such points...they are just created ex nihilo, as goals are kicked....
In my preferred world without junk advertising, an educated market will decide the price of those two items, both of which have intrinsic (life supporting) value - bearing in mind the concerns re sustainability of meat production; meantime MMT guarantees above poverty participation for ALL economic activity, whether market-based activity such as producing beef jerky or growing peanuts, AS WELL AS for non-market activity like caring for the elderly.
btw, no one owns the Mona Lisa, it is priceless human heritage.
Yes, but that is different to the setting of market prices (see below), as already pointed out by bringiton, determined by supply and demand in macro economics. The subjective opinion of any ONE individual is irrelevant in the market process; the aggregate of opinions is what counts aka "the invisible hand".
Yes. I see there is some confusion between 'price' and 'value' in this discussion.
Historical fact? aha..in the 2nd hand car market. Yet the new model Nissan Leaf has a fixed market price in 2020, you can find the price in a brochure yourself.
So it gets to shovel money to its favorite brother in laws company, to employ folks.
Channelling public sector services to specific private sector companies (without tender) is corruption; nice try to rule out a role for the public sector in the economy.
Government can purchase whatever is available for sale in its own currency - in this case, unemployed labour, but that is not corruption. Do you like well-maintained public parks?
And of course their corporatist bank buddies which will need trillions upon trillions to keep their quadrillion dollar pile of derivatives from imploding, to help our economy maintain full employment.
Yep, money out of thin air. I got that part.
No one owns it? Great, it'll look great on my living room wall.
Okay, so it sounds like we agree that only individuals can value something, which is subjective, but two individuals can buy/sell something for a price, which is objectively observable.
Well that took a while.
"their corporatist bank buddies" ….in the private sector.
A Fed, as part of the MMT consolidated public sector (including treasury) is beholden to congress. The parasitic financial industry derivatives casino, beholden to private sector players and injurious to the real economy, will cease to exist.
That's why the Ellen Brown article mentioned MMT as part of the solution to prevent "their quadrillion dollar pile of derivatives from imploding".
As Ellen has confirmed, at present the Fed is in the hands of private players; that is the problem.
So you agree money is created ex nihilo when private banks write loans for credit worthy customers?
…. everyone 'owns' it; I think you will have to travel to France to see the original...
[Language is tricky; see how you turned "no-one owns it", into "thanks, I'll have it", no doubt related to your individualist classical economics approach]
Meaning you have no objection to a (convertible, free-exchange, non gold standard) currency issuing government creating deposits ex nihilo in its own bank ie the central bank, (consistent with available resources), alongside deposit creation out of thin air in private sector banks (depending on requests for loans from credit worthy customers)?
Or do I have still have to show that private banks don't need savers' deposits before they can lend/create deposits for credit worthy customers (as confirmed by Mervyn King, governor of Bank of England 2003-2013) , and correspondingly, governments don't need to tax before they can spend (as posited in MMT)?
Separate names with a comma.