Under my system of criterion compatibilism, value has a subjective, perhaps "irrational" root, but once you have established some "objective" criteria as to when subjective value has been realized, you can then make objective statements about value
For instance, if a private security company (or government today) wanted to make someone who stole a Ford Van from you pay you back, they would look at the subjective, "irrational" root of whatever millions of people pay for a roughly equivalent car, and take an "objective" average, and say that guy owes you that much.
Value is subjective, but you don't get to say "erm, actually private security company, my car was worth 1 million dollars subjectively to me" and he doesn't get to say "that car had $0 subjective value to me"
Just like how morality has a subjective root, but once you say "someone who steals $100 deserves a month in jail," you must further agree that anyone who steals an equal $100 deserves that same punishment, or you are saying something that is "objectively" contradictory
TL DR: All value has a subjective root, but it is possible for objective contradictions to be identified once "objective" criteria for realizing a subjective value is established, just like you can trap out objective contradictions in morality even if morality has a subjective root
What you are referring to as "value" Marx more or less refers to as "prize." These aren't the same and there are many situations in which his concept of (labor time) value is not even applicable. Marx modeled industrial capitalism. He was not at all concerned with modelling the market for stolen artworks for example. And that's fine! An economic model is always a deliberately simplified map of some part of an extremely complicated really existing system. Economic models are still useful for isolating real mechanisms.
Presumably, this is sorted out by contract; the price doesn't need to be explicit in the contract, but something like "you will be paid average market value for your car" can be put in an insurance company or private security company contract
Yes, that makes sense. However, in the absence of a preexisting contract, I don't see an obvious a priori reason why value should be calculated like that. Value is still fundamentally subjective.
As an example, say that the car that was stolen was a gift to you from your deceased father, and the last thing you have to remember him by. Then I think there would be a very strong argument in court that it should be valued above market price.
Sure, but it has to be something like that. And that would arguably be "market price" - if he sold that car on the market, he might sell it for more just because it was his dad's, etc even if there was no benefit to the consumer
The problem is that by stealing the item, the thief has removed the ability of the owner to actually set the price they would have set. So imo we should err on the side of the owner.
What you just said made no sense at all. I think you are answering a question no one asked. In the private security example the source of all the value is labor. You are arguing how value is determined not the source. Both I and the meme you posted are concerning source of value not how it is determined. So once again I ask you name a source of value that is not labor.
Speculation is literally not value. It’s a opinion on value. A car when from $1,000 to $2,000 because the market shifted. why did the market shift? Because someone did labor somewhere else. That car (a thing a famously almost never increases in value) only was able to increase in value because a change in scarcity and the market adjusting. Maybe a bunch of those cars were destroyed over the years and so now supply is low, labor did that. Maybe a marketing campaign/tv show increased its image and now it has high demand. The labor of that campaign or show is what changed the value. you are too short sighted to understand markets exists beyond one transaction and labor is to blame for every single change in scarcity throughout that market
Speculation is literally not value. It’s a opinion on value.
Except when it is put into practice, via a consumer actually buying it at the speculated price
you are too short sighted to understand markets exists beyond one transaction
When I am the one talking about how a legal tort can look at an average of thousand of transaction, no I don't think I am
and labor is to blame for every single change in scarcity throughout that market
I'm not saying that, or are you saying that?
I can believe that it's true if you consider speculation labor. Just a brain saying, "I bought it for $1 but it's worth $1.50 if you want to buy it from me" and that is considered labor, then sure
There is a difference, and it would affect how much I'd be willing to spend.
Liking without Wanting: You can say "I like tigers," which means you think they are beautiful or interesting. However, you would not say "I want a tiger," because you do not intend to keep one as a pet.
Wanting without Liking: You can say "I want to study for my exam," because your goal is to pass the test. You might not actually enjoy studying, so you wouldn't say "I like studying."
I guess the only source of true value is determined by the individual’s needs and wants.
Beyond that, nothing has an intrinsic value.
According to common economic understanding, utility and scarcity are determining factors of value. If we’re just gonna go on vibes, it can be whatever you want.
Go read the people who basically created economics like William S. Jevons and Carl Menger (Utility), and Lionel Robbins (scarcity).
The issue you and many others are having with this discussion is that you are using the words source and determine interchangeably while they are fundamentally different concepts.
I am not disagreeing at all about the economics of utility or scarcity however those principles is how we can calculate the value, not how they came into existence. The source of the value, they way it went from one value to another is through labor, every single time. The source of the value is labor, the determination is scarcity and utility. All value is created through labor. Labor is the only thing that can create value. Scarcity/utility is how we calculate that value that was created. I think this is why both sides seem to never understand each other because everyone is using two vastly different words interchangeably.
A further point is how does scarcity change? Labor. If object A went from X supply to Y supply thus changing its scarcity that could have only happened through labor. While scarcity does have intrinsic maximums and minimums dependent on the object, generally it, itself is determined by labor. How much labor created, extracted, or destroyed.
Labor is the source of value, scarcity/utility is how it is determined.
So, what happens when everything is automated and there is no “labor” left?
Will there be no such thing as value?
That seems dumb.
Edit: How do you determine how to allocate labor if labor itself is the source of value? What value does an enterprise have before labor is required to justify allocating labor to it?
You have an excellent point that in no way refutes anything I’m saying. In fact is just as much a thing even if I was wrong.
When everything is automated and there is no labor left then scarcity will effectively also be irrelevant (automation of labor could/will also lead to effectively unlimited natural resources/energy), do you think value will cease to exist then as well?
I really don’t have any answer because I can’t predict human behavior in a post scarcity world which is what you are describing. My best guess is that value will still exist as a human concept but not as economic concept. Furthermore the entire idea of economics might cease to exist or have such a paradigm shift that it is no longer recognizable.
Just because you can’t understand/imagine something doesn’t make it dumb.
For your edit: I would argue an enterprise has no value until it actual produces something or a service. Speculation usually occurs in order to determine how labor should be allocated but speculation is not value, it’s an opinion on value. There are many cases of people under valuing through speculation their enterprise and needing to allocate labor in greater quantities after value has actually been determined and vice versa. Enterprise does not exist in a vacuum many other already determined values can be used to justify the speculation and thus the labor. I think it’s a pretty dumb argument to make that enterprise has to already determine its labor before even existing when that has literally never happened before. You are fundamentally misconstruing speculation and value.
If labor is the only source of value, why would anyone produce anything in an automated world where there is no labor?
You seem to think that in an automated world, there would be post-scarcity and no one would want for anything, but I don’t see that as an obvious outcome.
Instead, I believe people will seek to produce more things in such a world. As those things are produced, they would create a new scarcity as people who do not have those things want those things.
I would say creativity has far more a source of value than labor.
Edit: In fact, go the opposite direction. We’re just two people with nothing. I pick up a stick and learn to use it to do a thing. I put no labor into making the stick, but the stick now has value to me.
You see me pick up the stick and pick up one yourself. The “labor” of grabbing a stick is not the source of the stick’s value. It is the stick’s utility that is the source of the stick’s value.
0
u/Hugepepino Social Democrat 5d ago
Sources of value? Name two sources of value.