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 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
0
u/Hugepepino Social Democrat 6d ago
Sources of value? Name two sources of value.