The Relative Theory of Value

[kenshikenji]

i reject subjective, intrinsic/objective, and labor theories of values. instead i propose all value is relative. the rest of the presentation (4 parts) will done by today. any critiques or compliments are welcome.

 

summary

 

full presentation

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaOAGa9i274tW4BQQE7CpFv3qzxvFmL__

[percentient]

I hate to leave a short negative comment about your presentation style, but you sound twitchy and defensive, and hard to follow because of that.

[green banana]

What you wrote looks similar to a model proposed by John Eccles and Karl Popper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popper%27s_three_worlds

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I guess I just can't "let go".

[AncapFTW]

Tip #1: Relax.  All of the Ums and Uhs, the air gasps and the tense way you're talking just distract from your presentation.

 

Also, relative and objective are antonyms.  Yes, by your definition of objective they aren't, but I think that's more of a result of you using a word wrong or in a weird way.  Maybe "real" or "concrete" would work better than objective, as they don't have conflicting definitions with what you mean the word to mean.  Ex: I could use the word "light" to refer to subatomic particles, as they have little or know mass, but "light" in context generally is used to define electromagnetic radiation, ie. things made of photons.  Mass-less or low-mass would work better in some cases.

[kenshikenji]

I hate to leave a short negative comment about your presentation style, but you sound twitchy and defensive, and hard to follow because of that.

my objective is substance over style. not vice versa.  im appealing to those who can understand what im saying and criticize it properly.

[kenshikenji]

What you wrote looks similar to a model proposed by John Eccles and Karl Popper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popper%27s_three_worlds

i just took a quick look at this, i think you mentioned this on another post.  any subdivision of the universe or "world" will be similar. the important part is the differences.  

 

poppers subdivision is clearly not a partition.  my subdivision would say world 2 is a subset of world 1.  and world 3 is a world of concepts/or names of sets which again should be a subset of world 1 and maybe a subset of world 2.  i will read this further and critique it. but so far i already see a major difference in our classification of the universe or "world".  mine is a partition between subjective and non-subjective objects. his may serve no purpose if 1 is the super set , 2 is a subset, and 3 is just a sub subset.  when you partition you create mutually exclusive subsets of the superset (the "world" in poppers case).  partitioning differentiates between sets, subsets dont differentiate, they specialize.

 

 

[kenshikenji]

Tip #1: Relax.  All of the Ums and Uhs, the air gasps and the tense way you're talking just distract from your presentation.

 

Also, relative and objective are antonyms.  Yes, by your definition of objective they aren't, but I think that's more of a result of you using a word wrong or in a weird way.  Maybe "real" or "concrete" would work better than objective, as they don't have conflicting definitions with what you mean the word to mean.  Ex: I could use the word "light" to refer to subatomic particles, as they have little or know mass, but "light" in context generally is used to define electromagnetic radiation, ie. things made of photons.  Mass-less or low-mass would work better in some cases.

  it is objectively true that i am relatively bigger than danny devito.  even in a connotative sense, relative is a subset of objective. im still not sure if all objective is a subset of relative. but if it is they are the same. remember, im not even applying my definitions.  the word concrete has a material association.  object is a more appropriate term to capture even abstract items of reality.

[LibertarianSocialist]

I must admit firstly that I have watched only videos 1,3,and 4. Moreover my defenses will be directed to video 3 concerned with the Labour theory of value.

 

It should be noted that as a communist I do not support the ltv, regarding individual labour input incalculable, and also reject any form of market economy on the grounds that coercive profiteering (profit) is inextricable from market prices.

Having said this mutualism and the pre-communist period of anarchosyndicalism utilize the ltv, and it is these I will try to defend.

 

The claim about communists arguing that all value is derived from labour is not true. Obviously such things as natural resources have had inputs outside human labour, the earth and it's resources have not been formed from a blank slate by humans. Socialism preaches the equal access to all natural & preexisting wealth, for example earth's natural resources and the labour contributions of past generations. Therefore the ltv states that while these contribute to overall worth, they are not variables as labour is (due to being avaliable in theory to all), and so should not be remunerated in the current.

 

The ltv still utilizes a system of relative value discrimination by the consumer. If the man with a net catches 5 fish while the other catches 4, each charging the same, consumers will gladly buy from the former. What this means is that he won't have a unfair ability to drive up his profits through competitive advantage, he can work more hours yes, but socialism ensures any artificial barriers to competition are removed (ie. Capital based efficiency). A system of profits not based on remuneration for labour enables coercive profiteering due to artificial manipulations of the market ie. Artificial scarcity induced profit, rent, capitalist surplus labour extraction, usury.

 

Marginal revenue does not equalize with marginal cost in the real world as numerous social conflicts arise out of such profit squeezes. In the real worth shtf when the privilege of the ruling elite is challenged.

 

Please feel free to criticize or whatever, I probably have left a few ends untied.

[kenshikenji]

I must admit firstly that I have watched only videos 1,3,and 4. Moreover my defenses will be directed to video 3 concerned with the Labour theory of value.

 

It should be noted that as a communist I do not support the ltv, regarding individual labour input incalculable, and also reject any form of market economy on the grounds that coercive profiteering (profit) is inextricable from market prices.

Having said this mutualism and the pre-communist period of anarchosyndicalism utilize the ltv, and it is these I will try to defend.

 

The claim about communists arguing that all value is derived from labour is not true. Obviously such things as natural resources have had inputs outside human labour, the earth and it's resources have not been formed from a blank slate by humans. Socialism preaches the equal access to all natural & preexisting wealth, for example earth's natural resources and the labour contributions of past generations. Therefore the ltv states that while these contribute to overall worth, they are not variables as labour is (due to being avaliable in theory to all), and so should not be remunerated in the current.

 

The ltv still utilizes a system of relative value discrimination by the consumer. If the man with a net catches 5 fish while the other catches 4, each charging the same, consumers will gladly buy from the former. What this means is that he won't have a unfair ability to drive up his profits through competitive advantage, he can work more hours yes, but socialism ensures any artificial barriers to competition are removed (ie. Capital based efficiency). A system of profits not based on remuneration for labour enables coercive profiteering due to artificial manipulations of the market ie. Artificial scarcity induced profit, rent, capitalist surplus labour extraction, usury.

 

Marginal revenue does not equalize with marginal cost in the real world as numerous social conflicts arise out of such profit squeezes. In the real worth shtf when the privilege of the ruling elite is challenged.

 

Please feel free to criticize or whatever, I probably have left a few ends untied.

just from my experience with other ancoms, they always relate any value of a good, even if its raw material, to the labor that either went into producing it or consuming it.  but i dont know the LTV by any formal means. but is of no use to me unless it can better explain reality compared to my theory.

 

the man who catches 5 fish with the same amount of inputs as the guy who catches 4 will have a absolute (thanks greenbanana) advantage relative to the guy who catches 4.  he will be able to charge a lower price and capture the majority of the market share which translates to an increase in profit relative the guy with 4.  if demand is insufficient for fish, the guy who catches 4 will be driven to produce another good, thus maximizing his production relative to societies needs, thus the market lowers price and reallocates labor to where its most needed, maximizing the utility the market extracts from everyones production.

 

i thought i was very careful in saying that the producer is willing to produce until what he believes will be mr=mc. often there is a loss or gain, but any gain or extra profit is an beacon for other suppliers to come in and erode his profits if there are no artificial barriers to entry from government.  

[LibertarianSocialist]

just from my experience with other ancoms, they always relate any value of a good, even if its raw material, to the labor that either went into producing it or consuming it.  but i dont know the LTV by any formal means. but is of no use to me unless it can better explain reality compared to my theory.

 

the man who catches 5 fish with the same amount of inputs as the guy who catches 4 will have a COMPARATIVE advantage relative to the guy who catches 4.  he will be able to charge a lower price and capture the majority of the market share which translates to an increase in profit relative the guy with 4.  if demand is insufficient for fish, the guy who catches 4 will be driven to produce another good, thus maximizing his production relative to societies needs, thus the market lowers price and reallocates labor to where its most needed, maximizing the utility the market extracts from everyones production.

 

i thought i was very careful in saying that the producer is willing to produce until what he believes will be mr=mc. often there is a loss or gain, but any gain or extra profit is an beacon for other suppliers to come in and erode his profits if there are no artificial barriers to entry from government.

 

Ancoms, as I do, do believe all worth comes from either human or natural inputs, but they also preach individual contribution is unknowable, therefore so is remuneration based on this.

 

By reality do you mean the current social situation? I would say all social systems are artificial constructs aimed at shaping society through the bolstering of certain aspects of man's behaviour. Or by reality do you mean those behaviours which man is most inclined naturally? In this sense socialism could be perceived as a move away from the "reality" of tooth and nail competition, to the embrace of a more artificially moral social system. But to claim either socialism or capitalism are "reality" is absurd. For one, any form of property rights are an absurdity outside human rationalization.

 

My fish example was not an argument against how markets indicate efficiency, but rather that the ltv allows for such indications too. Whether relative value is the impetus behind labour is not important.

Ltv is simply the means by which the producers price is set, it has no bearing on the worth the consumer places on the product. It is very much an incomplete and artificial price system. Having said that, so are free markets. Capitalistic free markets have numerous artificial features which cause prices to be removed from worth. The communist view that worth is independent of price and that no price is calculable is probably correct. It is from this inability to calculate value that pricing systems are devised as approximations, the question is, which system best represents true worth? And which is most desirable to humanity?

 

The state is not the only barrier to entry. Inequality is a barrier to entry. Workers and Capitalists alike endeavour to maintain or advance their social standing. People with anything to lose will not simply let others join them because it's "just" or "the law", but will fight to maintain their competitive advantage, their privileged positions, in any way possible.

[kenshikenji]

Ancoms, as I do, do believe all worth comes from either human or natural inputs, but they also preach individual contribution is unknowable, therefore so is remuneration based on this.

 

By reality do you mean the current social situation? I would say all social systems are artificial constructs aimed at shaping society through the bolstering of certain aspects of man's behaviour. Or by reality do you mean those behaviours which man is most inclined naturally? In this sense socialism could be perceived as a move away from the "reality" of tooth and nail competition, to the embrace of a more artificially moral social system. But to claim either socialism or capitalism are "reality" is absurd. For one, any form of property rights are an absurdity outside human rationalization.

 

My fish example was not an argument against how markets indicate efficiency, but rather that the ltv allows for such indications too. Whether relative value is the impetus behind labour is not important.

Ltv is simply the means by which the producers price is set, it has no bearing on the worth the consumer places on the product. It is very much an incomplete and artificial price system. Having said that, so are free markets. Capitalistic free markets have numerous artificial features which cause prices to be removed from worth. The communist view that worth is independent of price and that no price is calculable is probably correct. It is from this inability to calculate value that pricing systems are devised as approximations, the question is, which system best represents true worth? And which is most desirable to humanity?

 

The state is not the only barrier to entry. Inequality is a barrier to entry. Workers and Capitalists alike endeavour to maintain or advance their social standing. People with anything to lose will not simply let others join them because it's "just" or "the law", but will fight to maintain their competitive advantage, their privileged positions, in any way possible.

are you sure you watched my video? ive addressed a lot of the points you bring up. there are no such things as artificial constructs.  your mind doesnt create things just by classifying things. 

 

again, youve not addressed any of the contradictions i bring up in the video.  you never see the products that are unprofitable brought to market. so obviously its the expectation of profit and not the labor per se that determines what to produce and how much a producer will sell his production for.

 

inequality determines what people produce.  comparative (not competitive) advantage utilizes differences in productivity of individuals.  this is the mechanism in how a market optimizes efficiency.

[TheRobin]

While I didn't have much trouble following your reasoning during the call, I find it impossible to follow your thoughts in your video. Admittedly, I only tried to first one and gave up after about 8 minutes in.

My humble advice would be to boil down what you're trying to say to it's bare essentials and then communicate that as best as you can and avoid all other arguments and thoughts while doing so.

[kenshikenji]

While I didn't have much trouble following your reasoning during the call, I find it impossible to follow your thoughts in your video. Admittedly, I only tried to first one and gave up after about 8 minutes in.

 

My humble advice would be to boil down what you're trying to say to it's bare essentials and then communicate that as best as you can and avoid all other arguments and thoughts while doing so.

sure but can you give an example of what was confusing? remember the terms i use are usually actual technical terms in science.  im referring to the terms i dont give an explicit definition for. do you have any problem with my definition set? i thought it was all explicit with no ambiguity.

[Guest Gee]

I'm having some trouble parsing out a definition but I think, because of the introduction to the Lorentz transformations, relative is being used in the physical meaning, therefore...

 

Value is measured with money.

Money is a scalar quantity (Scalar quantities are completely defined by their magnitude, direction has no meaning).

A scalar quantity can not be relative.

Therefore money can not be relative.

Therefore value can not be relative.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Video 3 states (right at the start).............

 

The relative value of a good is a function of the good and consumer. -KensiKenji

 

How is this not a restatement of the subjective theory of value? 

 

"The subjective theory of value is a theory of value which advances the idea that the value of a good is not determined by any inherent property of the good, nor by the amount of labor required to produce the good, but instead value is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of their desired ends" [1][2].

 

[1] Menger, C. Principles of Economics.

[2] Mises, Ludwig von. Human Action.

 

i reject subjective, intrinsic/objective, and labor theories of values. instead i propose all value is relative. the rest of the presentation (4 parts) will done by today. any critiques or compliments are welcome.

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaOAGa9i274tW4BQQE7CpFv3qzxvFmL__

 

You've stated you reject the subjective theory of value and at the start of video 3, you define relative value as exactly that of the subjective of theory of value.

[kenshikenji]

I'm having some trouble parsing out a definition but I think, because of the introduction to the Lorentz transformations, relative is being used in the physical meaning, therefore...

 

Value is measured with money.

Money is a scalar quantity (Scalar quantities are completely defined by their magnitude, direction has no meaning).

A scalar quantity can not be relative.

Therefore money can not be relative.

Therefore value can not be relative.

 

Video 3 states (right at the start).............

 

The relative value of a good is a function of the good and consumer.

 

How is this not a restatement of the subjective theory of value? 

 

"The subjective theory of value is a theory of value which advances the idea that the value of a good is not determined by any inherent property of the good, nor by the amount of labor required to produce the good, but instead value is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of their desired ends" [1][2].

 

[1]  Menger, C. Principles of Economics.

[2] Mises, Ludwig von. Human Action.

 

 

You've just stated you reject the subjective theory of value and at the start of video 3, you define value as exactly that of the subjective of value.

first money is a unit of measure. it is a measurement of production in an economy, any good can be written in terms of money and vice versa..

 

i gave a specific definition of relative. and when you take into account the identity function f(x)=x it shows that any scalar is still relative.

 

did you even pay attention to my definition of the "consumer"  even though this variable depends upon this consumer's goals,his goals must be set before acquiring the good to consume. once that goal is determined it becomes objective just before acquiring the good. therefore the variable "consumer" is ENTIRELY non-subjective.  once given the goals, abilities, and conditions of the consumer, ANYONE can evaluate the relative value of a particular good to that specific consumer. in other words, "consumer" is INDEPENDENT of the consumer's mind.

 

on the other had, the STV gives all weighting toward value on whatever the consumer's MIND places on the good, regardless if he is an idiot or ignorant or both.

 

see the difference?

[Guest Gee]

first money is a unit of measure. it is a measurement of production in an economy, any good can be written in terms of money and vice versa..

 

i gave a specific definition of relative. and when you take into account the identity function f(x)=x it shows that any scalar is still relative.

 

did you even pay attention to my definition of the "consumer"  even this variable depends upon this consumer's goals,his goals must be set before acquiring the good to consume. once that goal is determined it becomes objective just before acquiring the good. therefore the variable "consumer" is ENTIRELY non-subjective.  once given the goals, abilities, and conditions of the consumer, ANYONE can evaluate the relative value of a particular good to that specific consumer. in other words, "consumer" is INDEPENDENT of the consumer's mind.

 

on the other had, the STV gives all weighting toward value on whatever the consumer's MIND places on the good, regardless if he is an idiot or ignorant or both.

 

see the difference?

 

Scalars are not physically relative, they are never physically relative they are invariant under Lorentz transformations in all space in all time.

 

What you are saying is that a measurement is made prior to a measurement being made, which it is not by definition.

 

And I have no idea how you can say you reject the subjective theory of value whilst simultaneously using the definition of the subjective theory of value.

[kenshikenji]

Scalars are not physically relative, they are never physically relative they are invariant under Lorentz transformations in all space in all time.

 

What you are saying is that a measurement is made prior to a measurement being made, which it is not by definition.

 

And I have no idea how you can say you reject the subjective theory of value whilst simultaneously using the definition of the subjective theory of value.

apparently you are not referring to my definition of relative.  relative: determined by a mathematical relation of variables/objects. 

 

again all quantities or magnitudes or scalars are accounted for by the identity function.

 

apparently you did not even read what i wrote.  i can evaluate the relative value of a good to you. it is not up to the consumer's mind. it is up to his non-subjective goals, abilities, and external conditions.  a doctor can value health goods  for your consumption if you tell him all your symptoms and he examines you.  you can see he is able to do this because value is relative and not determined by your mind but your objective physiology.

[Guest Gee]

apparently you did not even read what i wrote.  i can evaluate the relative value of a good to you. it is not up to the consumer's mind. it is up to his non-subjective goals, abilities, and external conditions.  a doctor can value health goods  for your consumption if you tell him all your symptoms and he examines you.  you can see he is able to do this because value is relative and not determined by your mind but your objective physiology.

 

So the doctor determines value through the evaluation of a goods ability to achieve a desired outcome, that of becoming healthy.

 

The subjective theory of value is a theory of value which advances the idea that the value of a good is not determined by any inherent property of the good, nor by the amount of labor required to produce the good, but instead value is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of their desired ends.

 

All you have done is plagiarize the subjective theory of value.

[TheRobin]

sure but can you give an example of what was confusing? remember the terms i use are usually actual technical terms in science.  im referring to the terms i dont give an explicit definition for. do you have any problem with my definition set? i thought it was all explicit with no ambiguity.

Sure, you go off on tangents quite a bit. You use non-common definitions (maybe check the dictionary for a better word?), but also in the example of the definition of "object" you use the word object itself (which is circular and so doesn't help much either for that part of the definition). And yeah, using the technical mathematical term (which almost no one knows) isn't helpful either. 

But the most difficult part was stuff like your deep loud breaths, the uhms and the tangents. Given that it's already quite challenging to follow because of all the things mentioned above it should be even more of a priority to not drift off into tangents and have some flow to your presentation.

 

The actual text with the things you talk about was very helpful though.

[kenshikenji]

So the doctor determines value through the evaluation of a goods ability to achieve a desired outcome, that of becoming healthy.

 

The subjective theory of value is a theory of value which advances the idea that the value of a good is not determined by any inherent property of the good, nor by the amount of labor required to produce the good, but instead value is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of their desired ends.

 

All you have done is plagiarize the subjective theory of value.

dont know if youre just trying to be funny or what...

 

i refer to the "goods ability" and you somehow think this is "not determined by any inherent property of the good".  DONT YOU SEE THESE PHRASES CONTRADICT?

 

a goods ability IS an inherent property of the good

 

certain materials have a property called thermal conductivity, therefore someone will value it for use in making clothing if its a good insulator against cold weather.

certain materials have electrical conductivity/resistance and therefore make good insulators or conductors of electricity.

 

 

 

Sure, you go off on tangents quite a bit. You use non-common definitions (maybe check the dictionary for a better word?), but also in the example of the definition of "object" you use the word object itself (which is circular and so doesn't help much either for that part of the definition). And yeah, using the technical mathematical term (which almost no one knows) isn't helpful either. 

But the most difficult part was stuff like your deep loud breaths, the uhms and the tangents. Given that it's already quite challenging to follow because of all the things mentioned above it should be even more of a priority to not drift off into tangents and have some flow to your presentation.

 

The actual text with the things you talk about was very helpful though.

hello therobin, i am aware of my current presentation habits but thats not what i was referring to. that should get better over time

 

also im also not referring to my redefinitions.  this is the only way i can be sure to use a logically consistent definition set (one that i have constructed myself). as i have shows other resources such as dictionary.com are not logically consistent (i have shown this mathematically).  i define the word object and objective as:

 

object: anything existing in reality. anything the mind can attempt to comprehend. a POTENTIAL object of thought, but ones who's existence is not necessarily dependent on thought.

objective: being an object

as you can plainly see this is not circular.  while it is true objective is dependent upon object, the loop is not complete to make the circle.  object is not dependent upon objective. in my other video i show that the dictionary.com reference does the same thing, while not truly circular it defines object and objective as the same set which i have shown via mathematical proof (proof 2 in my video) by comparison of definition and proof by contradiciton. https://youtu.be/ouKGHJZtWC0?t=25m47s

im assuming im talking to an adult with obvious access to the internet. when i refer to mathematical terms, im assuming the person is capable of looking up the mathematical definition.  for instance, arbitrary has a mathematical meanings at dictionary.com.  

Arbitrary (Mathematics). undetermined; not assigned a specific value:

 

as long as you dont complete the loop the definition is not circular.  also, when i say in the video "logically equivalent" that is not the same as circular definition.  the only time circularity is a concern is when you use it in proof.  when you assume what you are trying to prove. to have one definition rely on another without reciprocation is NOT cirucular.  logically equivalent yes but not circular. also one is a noun the other is an adjective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_equivalence

 

definitions are critical, i cant use another definition set without first checking the consistency because my theory is logically rigorous. it is easier to construct a definition set than use someone elses believe it or not.

as far as tangents, im aware of them, but my tangents are to provide more intuition on the matter at hand.  tangents in a debate are more treacherous especially when someone challenges a tangent. 

 

but i appreciate your criticism, but i was looking for more criticisms of logic like your circular argument, not style like my stuttering or ummms .  my style will evolve.

[TheRobin]

I see. As I said, I stopped watching at around 8 minutes in, cause I had a hard time following, so I can't really comment on the ideas themselves. But if your presentation skills are lacking so much that you can't communicate ideas well enough for normal intelligent people to follow (or only follow with great effort) then you might as well not have said anything in the first place unfortunately.

 

Also just to be clear, with circular I meant your definition of "object" which itself includes the very same term ("object of thought")

[kenshikenji]

I see. As I said, I stopped watching at around 8 minutes in, cause I had a hard time following, so I can't really comment on the ideas themselves. But if your presentation skills are lacking so much that you can't communicate ideas well enough for normal intelligent people to follow (or only follow with great effort) then you might as well not have said anything in the first place unfortunately.

 

Also just to be clear, with circular I meant your definition of "object" which itself includes the very same term ("object of thought")

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

[kenshikenji]

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

 

[TheRobin]

Okay, so I buy an apple for 50 cents. What's the value of the apple to me and what's the value of the 50 cents to the seller? And how do you know?

[LibertarianSocialist]

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

I

The summary is good, outlines your arguments in a clear and concise way.

 

I've been listening to Kevin Carson on mutualism. Seems that he regards the ltv as an approximation of equilibrium price in a freed market, to be used in conjunction with a variable pricing system, although many mutualists stress the use of labour notes thereby rejecting a variable price.

 

The concept of the ltv (value=natural input+social input+labour input) serves as the objective standard of value, of true cost of production. It makes no attempt to evaluate the (variable) value the consumer places on the product, or its utility. This is perhaps by design.

 

Your argument seems to assume an entirely free market, which is never truly possible. Ergo, those wants and needs which influence the particular consumers perception of value are likely to be influenced by a degree of coercion. This coercion, whether by scarcity, natural difference in ability, inequality of capital, greater or lesser need, or whatever, allows prices to be removed from their true coercion-less value.

 

By neglecting the variable value of the consumer, ltv assumes a mean value instead. Whether this better approximates value under a (theoretical) truly free market is worth exploring.

 

On your criticism of ltv:

 

Non-economically viable products in a theoretical free market will still have equilibrium of price with cost of production (ltv) it is only that the volume of sales will be reduced. This will never occur though because markets can never be completely free.

 

All products, whether they reach the market or not must have their cost of production evaluated (prototyping). This then serves as a baseline to cost, where (speculated) market price, and so potential for profit, is compared, before being examined empirically (market). We can see that cost of production is found before market value, although speculation has no clear sequence.

 

Moreover you assume the ltv within a system where price is formed by both true cost of production and market price. This is one particular manifestation of a market, and both ltv and conventional free markets have distorting elements. Again, the question is which would best approximate the theoretical free market?

[kenshikenji]

Okay, so I buy an apple for 50 cents. What's the value of the apple to me and what's the value of the 50 cents to the seller? And how do you know?

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.

[TheRobin]

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.

Okay then, I'm hungry I want to eat something, the apple is in normal healthy condition. is it worth the 50 cents or not? And how do you determine that?

 

It sounds more like it's practically impossible to ever gain an answer to these kinds of questions anyway, so what can you actually predict and or deduct from your theory anyway? So far all I'm hearing is some abstract basic principle that doesn't lead anywhere

[kenshikenji]

Okay then, I'm hungry I want to eat something, the apple is in normal healthy condition. is it worth the 50 cents or not? And how do you determine that?

 

It sounds more like it's practically impossible to ever gain an answer to these kinds of questions anyway, so what can you actually predict and or deduct from your theory anyway? So far all I'm hearing is some abstract basic principle that doesn't lead anywhere

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.

[kenshikenji]

 

The summary is good, outlines your arguments in a clear and concise way.

 

1.I've been listening to Kevin Carson on mutualism. Seems that he regards the ltv as an approximation of equilibrium price in a freed market, to be used in conjunction with a variable pricing system, although many mutualists stress the use of labour notes thereby rejecting a variable price.

 

2.The concept of the ltv (value=natural input+social input+labour input) serves as the objective standard of value, of true cost of production. It makes no attempt to evaluate the (variable) value the consumer places on the product, or its utility. This is perhaps by design.

 

3.Your argument seems to assume an entirely free market, which is never truly possible. Ergo, those wants and needs which influence the particular consumers perception of value are likely to be influenced by a degree of coercion. This coercion, whether by scarcity, natural difference in ability, inequality of capital, greater or lesser need, or whatever, allows prices to be removed from their true coercion-less value.

 

4.By neglecting the variable value of the consumer, ltv assumes a mean value instead. Whether this better approximates value under a (theoretical) truly free market is worth exploring.

 

On your criticism of ltv:

 

5.Non-economically viable products in a theoretical free market will still have equilibrium of price with cost of production (ltv) it is only that the volume of sales will be reduced. This will never occur though because markets can never be completely free.

 

6.All products, whether they reach the market or not must have their cost of production evaluated (prototyping). This then serves as a baseline to cost, where (speculated) market price, and so potential for profit, is compared, before being examined empirically (market). We can see that cost of production is found before market value, although speculation has no clear sequence.

 

Moreover you assume the ltv within a system where price is formed by both true cost of production and market price. This is one particular manifestation of a market, and both ltv and conventional free markets have distorting elements. Again, the question is which would best approximate the theoretical free market?

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.

[kenshikenji]

Okay then, I'm hungry I want to eat something, the apple is in normal healthy condition. is it worth the 50 cents or not? And how do you determine that?

 

It sounds more like it's practically impossible to ever gain an answer to these kinds of questions anyway, so what can you actually predict and or deduct from your theory anyway? So far all I'm hearing is some abstract basic principle that doesn't lead anywhere

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.

[TheRobin]

Right, so your theory has absolutely no value whatsoever when it comes to gaining any knowledge about the economy and it's functioning. It's like a theory of gravity that says "stuff falls down and sometimes up, I can't really tell how or why or measure it or predict anything though ". 

[kenshikenji]

Right, so your theory has absolutely no value whatsoever when it comes to gaining any knowledge about the economy and it's functioning. It's like a theory of gravity that says "stuff falls down and sometimes up, I can't really tell how or why or measure it or predict anything though ". 

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.

[SamuelS]

I don't want to argue or try to understand your theory, but I've got some thoughts to throw out there, hopefully you find some value in them.

 

 

Have you ever seen the experiment where a $20 bill is auctioned off? My understanding is that it (nearly?) always goes for >$20...can your theory explain this?

 

Another thing that I think is missing, or a problem that is introduced when you claim objective value, is the basis of economic study in the first place -- trade. If a (potential) buyer and seller place/hold/determine an object to have the same value, why would they ever trade?

[AustinJames]

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.

But why?  Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeee???  Reading through this stuff is like eating a word salad made of recycled tires.  You have not provided adequate reason to even justify redefining these terms.  What could we possibly gain by accepting your definitions?  What would it change in philosophy?  What problems does it solve?  I know, you say that there are inconsistencies inherent in the implications of the current definitions, but that's like saying that the word "up" needs to be redefined because if someone is upside-down, then up is down, or in a zero-gravity state, "up" is completely relative.  In reality, these redefinition attempts are asinine.  They are not at all useful, nor are they true, nor do they improve anyone's understanding of philosophy.  On the contrary, your arguments work as a grand obfuscation for anyone that intends to apply philosophy in a meaningful way.  I'm sorry that you've invested so much thought in this, but you're really wasting your own time, along with the time of other people who have engaged with you hoping for a reasonable discussion.