kenshikenji

a social contract and NAP are not compatible. you cannot have implicit contracts with NAP or a free market. a free market would generate an explicit contract where it is seemingly profitable for both participants in the contract. but i generally agree with your statement, only that i believe it will be an explicit contract and not a social one, and that because SELF interest that people will cooperate to get rid of net negative actors in society

youre just talking nonsense if you do not cite the definitions you are using. you are obviously not exclusively working with my definition set. nor do you criticize the actual theory. you are trying to criticize the definition set. if youre not going to quote any of my definitions when you use them, then im not going to try to make sense of the nonsense that follows from it.

no, your arguments are invalid because their reasoning is faulty. not because its impossible to prove me wrong. ive made specific arguments why your arguments were invalid. i did not invalidate them just from declaration or a mere claim. i made arguments. your analogies were misplaced and you werent using my definition set. and even if you do accept my definition set, you have not presented another arguments since your analogy to the even and odd functions. dont tell me that im telling you that it is impossible to prove me wrong. but you have yet to deduce any contradiction or even show where my theory fails in evaluating any value.

you seem to be confused like stefan is about logic. if my definition set is logically consistent, that doesnt mean im manipulating logic itself. logic is impossible to manipulate. it is a structure of nature. you can change definition and the terms that reference them but logic is immutable by the mind. a theory is composed of starting definition and reasoning. there can be logical error in both those components because a theory is basically an argument containing three essential parts. the definition set, the premises, and the reasoning and conclusions. each of which can have logical problems. having a consistent definition set is only one possible area that may contain logical inconsistencies. in no way is a logically consistent definiton set sufficient to guarantee a logically consistent theory. BUT it is a necessary condition. again, i know the definition set is consistent, since i carefully used quantitative definition which is the most precise you can get. but my theory could have other logical errors which i do not see at the moment, and even if it does, its a much more comprehensive value theory than anything ive come across. so your argument is invalid.

i mean i see no logical inconsistencies in my theory. since i carefully constructed the definition set to be explicitly consistent.

odd an even functions are mutually exclusive because the axis of symmetry is the y axis for even functions and the reflection of the x axis for odd functions. this is not the case with subjective and objective in my definition set. to use this concept is not a good analogy because odd and even functions are not complements of each other even though they are mutually exclusive. again, i have a term for the complement of subjective. it is called NON-SUBJECTIVE. BOTH subjective and non-subjective objects are subsets of and compose (add together to create) the set objective. therefore my definition set classifies relative value as merely NON-SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE. https://youtu.be/jMza4j5ov24?t=7m57s relative value is a function of the state of the consumer. the state of the consumer are the goals, abilities and external conditions of the consumer. i also have a general form for subjective value which i explained in the long presentation of RTV that i didnt get into in the "for dummies" version https://youtu.be/e6RjxND_WnM?t=7m17s subjective value = s(mind) = s(sensory data,intelligence). all variables are subjective making subjective value SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE. there are no logical contradictions.

information asymmetry and the relative theory of value

no. plato's forms are just supersets . supersets are just a more general concept of the instances that populate them. when i say "suspended" in reality. i mean the mind is trying to measure relative value with their mind. just like any other objective measurement. i have a video on emotion and how the brain categorizes itself

if you actually understood the video youd see its not MY value. its relative to the consumer and the properties of the good. but it can be evaluated from any perspective. its not up to your mind to decide what is value. it is already "suspended" in reality. you are only trying to guess at it.

im sorry, but do you have any substantial criticism here? this "for dummies" presentation is boiled down to essential arguments. even your argument of style is just a general one. you do not specifically show where it is confusing, let alone address anything substantial of the theory. so far ive just been getting criticisms of style, minor typos, and misunderstandings. no arguments about why another value theory has better explanatory than mine or no arguments that show where my theory is contradictory. the most substantial critique so far has come from a socialist, which is kind of disappointing, unfortunately that was almost a total argument due to misinterpretation of the theory and the misapplication of the argument of a free market assumption..

an alternate way to evaluate the relative value of a good

so was i. B is as knowable as A. C is already accounted for in A and B. true value is the thing that prices and subjective value converge upon. i dont know why youre always trying to argue against the free market and the perfectly competitive assumption. maybe all your internet research and communist propaganda only taught you to argue against the assumption of a perfectly competitive market. this is not the topic to apply that to.

yes, sorry, the "for dummies" version skipped definition. in the long presentation i start with my definition set. https://youtu.be/jMza4j5ov24?t=2m38s you dont prove something by contrapositive. contraposition is just an equivalent statement. but yes you proving the contraposition is equivalent to proving the positive. its proof by contradiction i think you mean. contradiction relies on precise definition. finding an object that fits a definition and its complement or a set that is mutually exclusive at the same time is the contradiction you look for in proof by contradiction. but be sure its substantial, if its non substantial its like a removable discontinuity in calculus, it can be easily resolved by adjusting a few words. substantial contradictions require a whole reworking of the theory or to reject it totally. http://www.mathwords.com/r/removable_discontinuity.htm the phillips curve is not keynesian. the example you are referencing is disproving an all or none statement. to disprove an all or none claim all you have to show is one instance (a some claim) of the negated claim and youre done. so if you can show a value that is not relative then youre done. but this may be an unsubstantial claim. so if you want to really disprove me show that the value of a good is not relative. cannot be determined given the information i claim its relative to. (properties of the good, and state of the consumer)

all i said is that it will be difficult not impossible. because my theory is only in its infancy and the relative value function is only in a general form. as you may or may not know the more general a statement is the harder it is to disprove. the more specific you get the easier it is to find a contradiction. but all other value theories are also as general if not more so than mine. so all im asking is you present substantial arguments or make a case that there exists another value theory that has more explanatory power than mine.

to disprove you find a contradiction, either within the definition set or in a previous theory that i hold, or with respect to a scientific/mathematical law or theorem, but this is not a rigorous mathematical definition set so that will be difficult. but if you do, you must refer to a specific argument or definition i make in my presentation by referencing a passage or an exact time stamp of the video. dont present what YOU THINK i meant or at least ask for clarification. or just apply my theory and see how it leads to absurdity or contradiction. and be sure your argument is substantial, non-substantial contradictions can be resolved by changing a few words in an explanation so in order to argue against it, show where it may lose explanatory power, or find where another value theory is a better alternative to mine and prove it for MOST cases. as ive quickly shown all other value theories (subjective, intrinsic/objective, and labor) are all idiotic so, for example, here is an argument against the subjective theory of valule. if you have a tendency to adopt the subjective theory of value then you cannot believe in morality, since choice of action is subjective and you cannot call another person's actions objectively right or wrong. so therefore you cannot adopt two theories such as UPB and subjective value at the same time since UPB declares particular beharior to be universally/objectively preferable. (but it happens that both theories are fallacious) REMEMBER, ALL DISPROOF IS PROOF. YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE. dont believe in fallacies like " you cannot prove a negative claim."

again, please stop assuming. my model works under any condition. imperfect, or perfect competition. you dont understand what a construct is, in no way do mental constructs create an instance of it. constructs are sets used to classify real objects. your reasoning is obviously fallacious, since my theory actually does clarify what value is. it makes progress but doesnt actually state EXACTLY what it is. a seller with a gun to your head changes the valuation, relative value takes this into account by adjusting values of selecting the option that doesnt leave you dead since this is your objective. i suggest you rewatch the video before you criticize. your criticisms are just misunderstandings on your part. those other things than government, ARE the free market. it cant distort itself. distortion must come from outside the system.

1. you cant fix prices and have a true equilibrium. apparently youre not aware but price floors or ceilings that interfere with the natural equilibrium price only produces supply gluts or shortages. 2. the market erodes profit to 0, or in otherwords price approaches cost only in a perfectly competitively PRODUCER market, with a relatively less competitive consumer market. again, this applies only to the producers who are able to produce at that market clearing price and relies on the conditions i mentioned. what is not seen is all the producers who could not produce at this price and produce another ogood. 3. again, my value theory allows for any condition. it is not restricted to being a free market model. you are misusing that argument here. i know youre programmed to use it whenever you debate any libertarian, but you have to use it when it applies. it does not here. 6. market prices can only be distorted by government, everything else is an element of the market and therefore incapable of being distorted by itself. in the real world you dont have perfect competition on both the demand and supply side of any market or industry. any imbalance will increase/decrease one sides bargaining power and hence have more influence in choosing a price that is further away from their reserve price. supply and demand are independent of eachother with respect to the market of a particular good. a fact you fail to realize. value and price are independent of each other with respect to the final consumer of that good.

yes, im aware of that game theory experiment, but it drastically alters the rules of the auction where i think it somehow punishes the second place bidder incentivizing him to keep bidding to try to minimize losses. i dont think this game was taken to another iteration (a repeated game), since another iteration would actually imposing a learning curve on the bidders so they dont fall to any trap of ignorance that was unseen in the first iteration of this game. ill look into this, but my theory already generally acknowledges that people make mistakes in their decision making process. obviously they are trying to minimize loss in this game, but they fell into a trap they didnt foresee. this is the error of the human mind which is fully accounted for in the relative theory of value. these artificial games like prisoners dilemma often take on a new outcome with repeated iterations and the ability of the players to learn from their mistakes. as far as your second question, the necessary condition for a transaction to take place is the profit from trade must exceed the transaction costs. if it doesnt, then that particular trade will not occur. but this does not apply to ALL trade. just those whos potential subjective EXPECTED surplus doesnt exceed EXPECTED transaction costs. so its not saying there will be NO trade, its just that SOME potential trades will not occur due to EXPECTED loss for at least one party of the trade. ive stated before that the reason why people adopt a particular definition set or theory is that it helps them better understand objective reality which includes any mind. i wouldnt have presented a new definition set or theory of value if i thought the existing definitions and theories were adequate at explaining reality without contradicting themselves or creating paradoxes. your example of up and down is very relevant. when you define a perspective dependent term with a perspective variable it makes it much easier to communicate if not making communication possible. im sure NASA would either not use the term "up" or redefine it in terms of angles from the observers perspective. if you feel that ambiguous definition is somehow useful or "good enough" then it obvious that your tolerance for error is much higher than mine. it is not up to you to say if my theories or definitions do not improve upon or resolve the contradictions that previous definitions or theories present. all youre doing is making GENERAL claims, you have not made one complete specific argument. and ill be happy to address them when you do.

i dont know how youre arriving to your conclusions since they are obviously emotional. the RTV explains HOW subjective value is formed. do you realize this is the formula you apply when you choose to consume? the thing is STV just says value is what the consumer thinks it is. the RTV says WHY the consumer believes he values it as that. it also goes further into being able to show the general objective form from which to compare any subjective valuation. the RTV also shows how an expert evaluates the consumption of a good. RTV underlies EVERYTHING, RTV explains intrinsic, subjective, and price evaluation. again, the consumer has asymmetric information about the consumer variable. you give this information and his objectives to an expert of the type of good they want to consume and a person with more intelligence or more information about the goods under consideration can better maximize their utility. the theory of gravity is an explicit function. the RTV is the function in a general form. the theory of gravity gives precise predictions on what the force of gravity is based upon the masses of the objects and the distance between them. this is the inverse square law for distance and the product of the masses. its as if it were early in the development of the theory of gravity, where you didnt know the explicit function, but its general form. like the creator of the theory of gravity would say, hmmm the force of gravity seems to be proportional to the masses of each object, but decreases as you increase distance. thats what im saying with RTV. its only in its infant stage of development, since it is a much more general subject. the number of objectives abilities, conditions, and goods out there are almost infinite, so coming up with an explicit equation is a daunting task. i am working on at least two alternate forms of the RTV function, one that evaluates consequences (the events after consumption), and one that takes into account opportunity cost (or other goods of the same type forgone to consume one particular good , each are alternatives to satisfying the particular goal of the consumer.

also, again, relative value is evident in the consequences of consuming the good. but the effects of consuming the good may be felt well beyond the point of consumption.

1. again, whatever the cost (market price of inputs) that went into producing a good is only the concern of the producer. it has absolutely no relevance to the consumer who actually values the good for consumption. price is a negotiation between producer and consumer. that is a totally different topic than value. price is related to SUBJECTIVE value and not relative value. consumer subjective value is the highest price he is willing to pay for a good. producer subjective value is the lowest price hes willing to sell the good for. as long as price lies between the two, a transaction is likely to occur. equilibrium or market clearing price is just the aggregate analysis of this situation. this is not a mystery. i dont know what the LTV is valid for if it is trying to solve something that is already known by economics. 2. even if i assume youre correct, that the LTV is in no way trying to determine the value i describe with RTV, you seem to be confused at what the LTV is describing. first you say its equilibrium (market clearing) price, and now you say its the cost of production. the latter would be more relevant to labor inputs, the former is as i said in 1. 3. in no way does my model assume a free market. it takes into account ALL possible conditions, the variables are positive observations of the inherent properties of the good and the state of the consumer. you can just as easily evaluate these in a free market, oligopoly, market monopoly, or government monopoly. i think youre too wrapped up in criticizing the perfectly competitive model of classical economics. youre misapplying that argument here because youre used to using it in other debates. 4. i dont think youre making a clear distinction between relative value, subjective value, and price. these are all different objects. 5. my model does not assume a free market. the summary only describes the perspective of a profit maximizing producer. it doesnt try to describe the strategy of a inefficient producer who is not concerned with profit like government. but that doesnt mean it assumes a free market. the profit maximizing producer can operate in either a total free market or a government run economy. 6. again, to try to determine market clearing price, one must take into account demand, not only the production perspective. if it never comes to market, there will be no price for the good.

again, youve introduced a monetary unit. when you ask if its worth fifty cents, you inherently introduce a more dynamic choice than you are apparently unaware of. was there a good that costs $.50 or less that would better satisfy your hunger than that apple? as ive said before. information becomes virtually impossible to attain the more precise the information is. you can attain general information with certainty but lose precision/specificity. the objective existence of information DOES NOT RELY ON PEOPLE ACTUALLY KNOWING IT. if you revisit my explanation of my definitions of object, youll see the only criteria is that an ATTEMPT at apprehension can be made. not an actual apprehension. im claiming relative value exists but that doesnt necessarily i know what it is at every instance but im claiming even YOU cant maximize your own utility perfectly, that doesnt mean the optimum path to maximizing utility doesnt exist, it probably does. lets just assume the unifying theory of physics exists. it is not known, no one can tell you what it is at the moment or maybe ever. this does not mean it does not exist. same with the relative theory of value. just because i came up with a descriptive theory, doesnt mean i even know what the precise function is. if i knew this i could spit out a dollar value of the apple to you. you see i only give a general form of it. but it has perfect explanatory power since it is general and not specific. one can even give the general form of the unifying theory of physics. and describe it as resolving the differences of all disciplines of physics. the generality of the description does not actually state the precise theory. also note that i omitted the variable "external conditions" from the relative value function just to be brief. but this is relevant to your hypothetical. i added it back in the outline.

you would have to tell me the inherent properties of the apple and your physiology at the time of consumption. from your poorly defined hypothetical i can only say YOU THINK you value the apple more than $.50. you can be wrong. the apple can have a rotten core, or there can be another good, a burger for instance, that costs the same and gives you higher utility. i dont think you have given my theory much thought. objective things dont rely on actually being known, just that an attempt can be made at apprehension. but you didnt watch my full video's so youre not taking my definition sets into account. the only reason a consumer has an advantage in determining relative value is information is asymmetric. the goals and abilities of a consumer are not easily known by a third party. that is why you have an asymmetric advantage in this hypothetical. but the fact you didnt give me your goals abilities (physiology) and inherent properties of the apple shows you did not digest what i said in the video.

here is a summary of the relative theory of value. ive tried to boil down the arguments to its essential parts

yes, im hoping to find someone whos looking for substance not style. when ive refined my theory i will hire someone with a smooth voice and foreign accent to voice over my presentation. ohhhh, yes, good point, i thought that as well when i was adding something just now. but that was only an alternate phrasing. the first sentence was the primary phrasing. but i will revise that. thanks