Alt. statement of UPB *redux

[Guest Gee]

The first thread glitched, so lets get this rolling!

 

That "the total value of the economic states of two people in a room may not decrease", is a statement of UPB.

 

It is a statement of UPB because it is an equilivent statement to "two people in a room may not simultaniously steal from each other".

 

Pretty short.

[neeeel]

The first thread glitched, so lets get this rolling!

 

That "the total value of the economic states of two people in a room may not decrease", is a statement of UPB.

 

It is a statement of UPB because it is an equilivent statement to "two people in a room may not simultaniously steal from each other".

 

Pretty short.

 

Im not sure thats what UPB says. 2 people in a room CAN simultaneously steal from each other.

[Guest Gee]

You could go with "two people can not simultaniously murder each other", I just prefered theft.

 

Or just "two people can not simultaniously transition to less preferable states".

 

From austrian economics, the preferablility of a state is denoted as such by its ordinal value.

 

So...

 

dV is the change in value between two economic states.

 

Preferable, increase in value. dV > 0

Non preferable, decrease in value. dV < 0

Indifference, no change in value. dV = 0

 

So for two people to transition to less preferable states implies, dV_T = dV₁ + dV₂, where dV_T is the total value

 

As dV₁ < 0 and dV₂  < 0 thus dV_T < 0.

 

But UPB prohibits simultanious transitions to less preferable states, so dV_T < 0 is forbidden.

[Queensalis]

About the example with two people in a room:

If they get into a fight and each gets injured, voila, they just both transitioned into less preferable state.

They could even fight so bad that they both die from injuries and blood loss shortly in which case they just both murdered each other in the same time.

[shirgall]

Remember that UPB says "universally preferable" which is not the same state as "preferable". It is the universally preferable construction that is objective, a statement of what should be preferred by everyone.

 

Stealing is the action of taking possession of a thing without justification. If it is universally preferable to steal--"everyone should steal"--there is no unjustified possession (the universal preference negates the lack of justification). Therefore, there is no distinction between stealing and other forms of obtaining possession in our hypothetical, which causes the universal preference to fail. It cannot be UPB therefore it is immoral.

 

Just as if it is universally preferable to murder then murder ceases to be distinct from other forms of homicide. It cannot be UPB therefore it is immoral.

 

Pages 32 and 33 of the UPB book covers "universally preferable" in better detail.

[Will Torbald]

Only if stealing were universally preferable would two people in a room be unable to steal from each other. It's not a statement made in our world, but one in a hypothetical one.

[EclecticIdealist]

Remember that UPB says "universally preferable" which is not the same state as "preferable". It is the universally preferable construction that is objective, a statement of what should be preferred by everyone.

Please elaborate as to the definition you are using for the term "objective".

 

Stealing is the action of taking possession of a thing without justification. If it is universally preferable to steal--"everyone should steal"--there is no unjustified possession (the universal preference negates the lack of justification). Therefore, there is no distinction between stealing and other forms of obtaining possession in our hypothetical, which causes the universal preference to fail. It cannot be UPB therefore it is immoral.

What you're saying here is that unjustified taking of property is cannot simultaneously be justified; or in other words !A != A. It fails internal consistency. But is this really a fair assessment of the action? I don't think it is. It is already prejudiced with the bias that the taking is inherently deemed unjust. Instead, the proper assessment must bet whether it is just for everyone to take whatever they desire (if necessary, by force). This removes the prejudice and still leaves the question open to moral scrutiny. Can we desire that everyone take whatever they desire, if necessary, by force? The answer seems obvious that noone wishes to have their own property in jeopardy of being taken by another; therefore, it is universally preferable that property be considered inviolate.

 

Just as if it is universally preferable to murder then murder ceases to be distinct from other forms of homicide. It cannot be UPB therefore it is immoral.

This is not why murder fails to be UPB. It fails because, like theft no one wishes to be deprived of their ability to go on living, so it cannot be universalized by society. Killing in self-defense is not universalized either; it is simply accepted as an unfortunate necessity in some circumstances; but because it is not found to be necessary in all circumstances, it cannot be universalized as an option of self-defense in all cases... i.e., one cannot justifiably kill another person in defense of one's reputation, or even of one's property (unless such property is necessary to the continuance of one's life in which case failure to defend one's property with any means necessary in fact results in a loss of one's life, not merely a loss of one's property).

[Guest Gee]

Remember that UPB says "universally preferable" which is not the same state as "preferable". It is the universally preferable construction that is objective, a statement of what should be preferred by everyone.

 

Yeah I got the first post wrong, it is a bit too stong.

 

Again, if you start with Austrian economics and presume the existance of economic states then behaviour would be that which transitions you between economic states.

 

Let preferable behaviour be behaviour that leads to a preferable state.

 

Universally preferable behaviours are behaviours two people can prefer simultaniously, which is then behaviours in which two people can simultaniously undertake and transition to a preferable state.

 

So if two people engage in universally preferable behaviour,

 

dV_T = dV₁ + dV₂

dV₁ > 0

dV₂ > 0

implies dV_T > 0.

 

Mutually benifical trade is an good example.

 

(btw. I think this is what Ayn Rand was talking about when she used positives, negitived and zeros).

 

I was wrong because if you consider a transition for two people, one is perferable, one is not preferable.

dV₁ > 0

dV₂ < 0

does not imply dV_T > 0

 

That said you can say if you follow UPB then dV_T > 0 for all transitions. Presumably then you could let some number of people all do whatever and follow UPB and for every transition dV_T > 0. After some peirod of time you could imagine they stop making changes in their economic state, it would then reasonable assume V_T is maximised.

[neeeel]

You could go with "two people can not simultaniously murder each other", I just prefered theft.

 

 

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but it seems perfectly possible that 2 people can simultaneously murder each other

[shirgall]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but it seems perfectly possible that 2 people can simultaneously murder each other

 

"Can", sure, but "should"? Universally preferable means that the behavior in question should be done by everyone.

[neeeel]

"Can", sure, but "should"? Universally preferable means that the behavior in question should be done by everyone.

 

right, but Graham said "can" not "should".

[dayna j.]

"Can", sure, but "should"? Universally preferable means that the behavior in question should be done by everyone.

 

How do you know if something is "universally preferable" ?

[shirgall]

How do you know if something is "universally preferable" ?

 

Any behavior can be claimed to be universally preferable and tested with UPB. It is a test not an answer.

 

Again, the UPB book covers this on pages 32-33, but the idea is that a "universally preferable behavior" is a claim that a particular behavior should be performed by everyone. It is the hypothesis that is then tested within the UPB framework.

[EclecticIdealist]

Any behavior can be claimed to be universally preferable and tested with UPB. It is a test not an answer.

 

Again, the UPB book covers this on pages 32-33, but the idea is that a "universally preferable behavior" is a claim that a particular behavior should be performed by everyone. It is the hypothesis that is then tested within the UPB framework.

With regard to whether the proposition should be performed (or eschewed) by everyone, it is based on the presumption that one agrees with the foundational premises of libertarian values which Stefan has built into his UPB test; specifically, Does it conform to the NAP? Does it respect/support private ownership property? Is the action, if in response to an aggression, an appropriately proportionate response? (e.g., not shooting someone for being late to a meeting). One could alter the framework to support a different moral standard and then apply moral propositions against the framework in the same way to see if they conform with the moral standard. The underlying or fundamental assertion implied and indirectly stated by UPB is that libertarian values or ideals are Universally Preferred by all members of society and applicable to all members of society.

[shirgall]

With regard to whether the proposition should be performed (or eschewed) by everyone, it is based on the presumption that one agrees with the foundational premises of libertarian values which Stefan has built into his UPB test; specifically, Does it conform to the NAP? Does it respect/support private ownership property? Is the action, if in response to an aggression, an appropriately proportionate response? (e.g., not shooting someone for being late to a meeting). One could alter the framework to support a different moral standard and then apply moral propositions against the framework in the same way to see if they conform with the moral standard. The underlying or fundamental assertion implied and indirectly stated by UPB is that libertarian values or ideals are Universally Preferred by all members of society and applicable to all members of society.

 

The premises are:

1. we both exist

2. the senses have a capacity for accuracy

3. language has a capacity for meaning

4. correction requires universal preferences

5. an objective methodology exists for separating truth from falsehood

6. truth is better than falsehood

7. peaceful debate is the best way to resolve disputes

8. individuals are responsible for their actions

 

The NAP is not one of these. It is not until page 53 where he explains that NAP and proposes testing these claims on 54.

 

1. It is universally preferable to initiate the use of force.

2. It is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force.

3. The initiation of the use of force is not subject to universal preferences. 

 

The entire next part of the book ("II. Application") that tests Rape, Murder, Theft, and Fraud (and more) examines individual cases of force initiation and does not rely on the NAP as a premise.

[EclecticIdealist]

The premises are:

1. we both exist

2. the senses have a capacity for accuracy

3. language has a capacity for meaning

4. correction requires universal preferences

5. an objective methodology exists for separating truth from falsehood

6. truth is better than falsehood

7. peaceful debate is the best way to resolve disputes

8. individuals are responsible for their actions

These are merely the implicit premises that must be accepted by all parties wishing to engage in a peaceful debate (rather than settle a disagreement by some other method, such as chance, combat, or some other non-rational method). (UPB - p.34)

 

The NAP is not one of these. It is not until page 53 where he explains that NAP and proposes testing these claims on 54.

 

1. It is universally preferable to initiate the use of force.

2. It is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force.

3. The initiation of the use of force is not subject to universal preferences. 

 

The entire next part of the book ("II. Application") that tests Rape, Murder, Theft, and Fraud (and more) examines individual cases of force initiation and does not rely on the NAP as a premise.

The entire premise of the difference between ethics and aesthetics is determined by the NAP, although it is never identified as such. Instead, it is identified as avoidability or whether or not the action eliminates the capacity to choose (UPB -p.50) The unspoken ideal that must be presumed is liberty, and the principle guarding universal individual liberty is commonly set forth in principle by libertarians as the NAP. NAP deals with the intentional, unavoidable acts of others. That is also the test which Stefan has built-in to distinguish between ethics, aesthetics, and accidents. Without intention, it’s neither an ethic nor an aesthetic. With intention, but without unavoidability it is either a preference or an aesthetic (depending upon whether the preference is individually or universally held). With intention and unavoidability, it is a matter of ethics and either conforms to or violates the NAP.

[Will Torbald]

. The underlying or fundamental assertion implied and indirectly stated by UPB is that libertarian values or ideals are Universally Preferred by all members of society and applicable to all members of society.

Just that they are applicable to all, not that they are already preferred. I don't know of any argument in it that states that UPB refers to preferences that are already in vogue by everyone, nor that they refer to local and cultural preferences. This seems to me to be a misunderstanding. It's what people ought to prefer, and can prefer universally - not what they currently prefer.

[EclecticIdealist]

Just that they are applicable to all, not that they are already preferred. I don't know of any argument in it that states that UPB refers to preferences that are already in vogue by everyone, nor that they refer to local and cultural preferences. This seems to me to be a misunderstanding. It's what people ought to prefer, and can prefer universally - not what they currently prefer.

UPB makes reference to Rape, Assault, Murder, and Theft which are all tested against preferences that are "already in vogue" by virtually everyone. Furthermore, UPB is an argument for a rational (internally and externally consistent), universally applicable (to all under all times, places and circumstances) morality, i.e. a code of conduct which is applicable to all members of a society based on behavior that is preferred by all (or at least most) of society. One could hardly hope to construct a moral standard that is not preferred by at least the majority of society, or if not, at least a strong majority of the most powerful and influential who can exert their influence and will over the rest of society.  UPB is not what people "ought to prefer" but rather, what people "ought to do (or not do)". The purpose of morality is to dictate behavior, not sentiment.

Here's a flow chart for determining whether a proposition is UPB:

 

1 - Is it an action or behavior or not?  Not?  It's not UPB.

2 - Is it Intentional (as opposed to unintentional)?  No? - It's not UPB  It's either an accident or not caused by human intention and therefore not an aesthetic or ethical proposition.

3 - Does it pertain to a universally held preference (as opposed to an individually held preference, or a preference held only by some)?  No?  It's not UPB. It pertains to an individually held preference such as one's preference for a particular flavor of ice cream, or a particular musical artist, etc. It's not UPB. 

4 - Is it universally applicable (as opposed to only being applicable to an individual, class, or group of people, or applicable only in certain places, or only under certain circumstances, or only at certain times, etc.)? (Can the preference be applied universally, i.e., to all persons at all times, in all places, under virtually all circumstances (exceptions for being in a coma, being alone, etc) ?) No?  It's not UPB. If it doesn't apply to everyone it's not UPB. (This is also when one generally determines the rational internal or self-consistency of the proposition, i.e., is it even possible for everyone to do it (or avoid doing it) if all wish to act morally?)

 

If it's intentional, a universally (rather than individually) held preference, and it's universally applicable, it's UPB!

 

What kind of UPB is it?

 

5 - Is it optional or avoidable (as opposed to obligatory or unavoidable/inflicted)? Yes, it's optional or avoidable. It's an aesthetic. While it is universally desirable and applicable for all to conform to this preference under all circumstances, etc., one cannot justify the use of force to compel compliance.  Next, determine which aesthetic category the action or behavior falls under (positive/desirable or negative/undesirable).

 

or 

 

No, It's obligatory or unavoidable/inflicted - It's an ethic. It is universally desirable for all to conform to this preference, and one can justify the use of force to compel such compliance.  Next, determine which moral category the action or behavior falls under (moral or immoral).

 

In short, UPB = Intentional, Universally Preferable, Universally Applicable, Behavior.  UPB Aesthetics are optional or avoidable and unenforceable. UPB Morality is unavoidable or obligatory and enforceable.

 

UPB morals are inherently libertarian because it tests for the Universal application of the NAP. A similar framework could be designed to instead test for conformance to Islamic ideals, Christian ideals, Marxist ideals, etc.

[Will Torbald]

UPB makes reference to Rape, Assault, Murder, and Theft which are all tested against preferences that are "already in vogue" by virtually everyone.

 

A lot of people in the world are not like that. The muslim world allows for many kinds of rapes, assaults, and murders. There is always a culture of the ingroup and the outgroup. We good, they bad. Killing ingroup bad, killing outgroup good. That's what UPB is up against, saying that murder and rape etc are bad no matter what group a person belongs to. In secular liberal societies like America it may be in vogue, but noooooot at all in many other parts of the world or cultures.

[EclecticIdealist]

A lot of people in the world are not like that. The muslim world allows for many kinds of rapes, assaults, and murders. There is always a culture of the ingroup and the outgroup. We good, they bad. Killing ingroup bad, killing outgroup good. That's what UPB is up against, saying that murder and rape etc are bad no matter what group a person belongs to. In secular liberal societies like America it may be in vogue, but noooooot at all in many other parts of the world or cultures.

That's right. A lot of people in the world are not moral according to the subjective moral standard of libertarian ethics or Stefan's conceptualization of it in UPB. Morals are not Objective because unlike truth, preferences are not objective. Preferences are subjective, and so any standard of morality that is based upon preferences (which all of them are) is subjective, including UPB. The only thing that UPB has going for it that most other moral standards do not, is its lack of superstition to provide its authority. Instead, the authority of UPB is the consensus of the individual members of society--"universally preferred". The key to solving the immorality in the world is obtaining consensus in the hearts and minds of all members of society as to the ideals or values one should hold, and this is not an easy thing to do when there is so much pain and violence being experienced by people in nations around the world including our own (wherever you happen to live).

For some reason, my original response to this post has not been approved. Therefor I am re-writing it and adding a little.

The premises are:

1. we both exist

2. the senses have a capacity for accuracy

3. language has a capacity for meaning

4. correction requires universal preferences

5. an objective methodology exists for separating truth from falsehood

6. truth is better than falsehood

7. peaceful debate is the best way to resolve disputes

8. individuals are responsible for their actions

These are the premises that must be accepted for engaging in an peaceful debate or argument. Not the premises of UPB.

The NAP is not one of these. It is not until page 53 where he explains that NAP and proposes testing these claims on 54.

 

1. It is universally preferable to initiate the use of force.

2. It is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force.

3. The initiation of the use of force is not subject to universal preferences. 

 

The entire next part of the book ("II. Application") that tests Rape, Murder, Theft, and Fraud (and more) examines individual cases of force initiation and does not rely on the NAP as a premise.

The NAP is never explicitly stated, as a fundamental premise of Stefan's philosophy, but it is an integral part of the ethical framework he has constructed. The NAP is the universally applicable principle of not initiating force against others to maximize liberty and peace in society. The initiation of force makes an act unavoidable, which is the defining characteristic of an immoral action according to UPB. You might claim that I have it backwards, that UPB justifies the NAP, but that's question begging because it hasn't been established WHY the unavoidability of intentional actions is the sine qua non of ethics vs aesthetics. Why not some other standard, such as whether the act is kind or beneficial vs cruel or harmful, or whether the act is in submission to the will of Allah or in opposition to the will of Allah? Avoidability divides "the moral good" from "the aesthetically positive" in UPB, but it has no explicit underlying justification. It is an implicit axiomatic premise, a subjective bias that one must agree with to accept UPB. Naturally, if one has libertarian leanings, one will be inclined to accept it. If one does not, one may not.

[Guest Gee]

So no body wants to talk about OP or my second post? I would like to talk about marrying UPB and austrian economics (hence value).

[EclecticIdealist]

That "the total value of the economic states of two people in a room may not decrease", is a statement of UPB.

 

It is a statement of UPB because it is an equivalent statement to "two people in a room may not simultaneously steal from each other".

Value is subjective. Any voluntary transaction that is free of deception will increase the subjective value for both parties. This is how wealth is created for both parties in a transaction. It is why both parties benefit from a voluntary transaction. In the case of a person buying a car, the car is worth more than the money they part with to the person buying the car. In the case of the person selling the car, the money they receive for the car is worth more than the car. Economic states can only rightfully be measured subjectively, from the perspective of each individual whose economic state is being measured.

[Will Torbald]

So no body wants to talk about OP or my second post? I would like to talk about marrying UPB and austrian economics (hence value).

I'm not an economist, nor austrian. When you pulled out equations you might as well have written black magic to me. I'll ask however, is it that interesting to write a value equation for upb? What does it help to understand that wasn't clear before with words?

[Guest Gee]

I'm not an economist, nor austrian. When you pulled out equations you might as well have written black magic to me. I'll ask however, is it that interesting to write a value equation for upb? What does it help to understand that wasn't clear before with words?

 

Dunno, why climb a mountain I guess.

[rosencrantz]

"the total value of the economic states of two people in a room may not decrease"

 

A (closed) room is a closed system and hence the sum total of economic value of two people cannot decrease or increase.

 

Person A: 0$ - Person B: 100$ = sum 100$

 

Theft

 

Person A: 100$ - Person B: 0$ = sum 100$

[shirgall]

Person A: meals enough for two people, Person B: no meals, Sum: Person B dies

 

Theft

 

Person A: meals enough for one person, Person B: meals enough for one person, Sum: no one dies

 

"Value" is a much more complex concept than dollar amount. It had objective and subjective elements. It has quantitative and qualitative measurements. The same thing can have different value to different individuals.

[Guest Gee]

A (closed) room is a closed system and hence the sum total of economic value of two people cannot decrease or increase.

 

Person A: 0$ - Person B: 100$ = sum 100$

 

Theft

 

Person A: 100$ - Person B: 0$ = sum 100$

 

If you let money be some sort of energy and so have the unit of Joules then sticking them in a room ensures that U_T doesn't change, but they could explore the distribution of money (energy) between them to maximise entropy.

Person A: meals enough for two people, Person B: no meals, Sum: Person B dies

 

Theft

 

Person A: meals enough for one person, Person B: meals enough for one person, Sum: no one dies

 

"Value" is a much more complex concept than dollar amount. It had objective and subjective elements. It has quantitative and qualitative measurements. The same thing can have different value to different individuals.

 

I don't know....

 

 

“These scales of preference may be called happiness or welfare or utility or satisfaction or contentment… when an actor has attained a certain end, he has increased his state of satisfaction, or his contentment, happiness, etc

 

M. Rothbard, Man, Economy and State with Power and Market, , p18.

 

This is from the chapter of Human Action. Further Implications. 5A, Ends and Values.

 

I think the Austrians shoot past measurable value as a concept because it would have to be some sort of state function of an imaginary (virtual) economic state. Incidently, behaviour would then be a path function.

[Guest Gee]

Value is subjective. Any voluntary transaction that is free of deception will increase the subjective value for both parties. This is how wealth is created for both parties in a transaction. It is why both parties benefit from a voluntary transaction. In the case of a person buying a car, the car is worth more than the money they part with to the person buying the car. In the case of the person selling the car, the money they receive for the car is worth more than the car. Economic states can only rightfully be measured subjectively, from the perspective of each individual whose economic state is being measured.

 

Well, that isn't really true. You see, you could play a complex game of would you rather. Say someone is sitting on the couch and you want them to read all 1500 page of Man, Economy and State. Assuming they would rather stay on the couch than read this outragously long tome then reading the tome implies a change to a less valuable state. You can measure this change in value if you started offering infinetly small incriments in money.

 

Like I will pay you $0.01, they say no, so I will pay you $0.02, they say no, etc, etc..

 

At some point in time they say yes, say a $100. That means that, assuming we went up in these small incriments, that change in value is somewhere between the value added by $99.99 and $100 (you could do this to whatever decimal point you want).

 

Now, if you had a defined value function for adding money, some log function no doubt, then you would know exactly how much value had to be transfered to the couch potatoe in order to get him/her/ze/zir to read the tome.

 

(tl;dr for physicists, if value is a state function then just define a reverable process connecting the two points in state-space).

[Tyler H]

The same thing can have different value to different individuals.

In fact, isn't this the essence of trade?

[shirgall]

In fact, isn't this the essence of trade?

 

Indeed, that's how everyone in a free transaction benefits.

[Tyler H]

Well, that isn't really true. You see, you could play a complex game of would you rather. Say someone is sitting on the couch and you want them to read all 1500 page of Man, Economy and State. Assuming they would rather stay on the couch than read this outragously long tome then reading the tome implies a change to a less valuable state. You can measure this change in value if you started offering infinetly small incriments in money.

 

Like I will pay you $0.01, they say no, so I will pay you $0.02, they say no, etc, etc..

 

At some point in time they say yes, say a $100. That means that, assuming we went up in these small incriments, that change in value is somewhere between the value added by $99.99 and $100 (you could do this to whatever decimal point you want).

 

Now, if you had a defined value function for adding money, some log function no doubt, then you would know exactly how much value had to be transfered to the couch potatoe in order to get him/her/ze/zir to read the tome.

 

(tl;dr for physicists, if value is a state function then just define a reverable process connecting the two points in state-space).

But doesn't the subjectivity lie in the fact that this price will be different dependent on the potato?

[EclecticIdealist]

Well, that isn't really true. You see, you could play a complex game of would you rather. Say someone is sitting on the couch and you want them to read all 1500 page of Man, Economy and State. Assuming they would rather stay on the couch than read this outrageously long tome then reading the tome implies a change to a less valuable state. You can measure this change in value if you started offering infinitely small increments in money.

 

Like I will pay you $0.01, they say no, so I will pay you $0.02, they say no, etc, etc..

 

At some point in time they say yes, say a $100. That means that, assuming we went up in these small increments, that change in value is somewhere between the value added by $99.99 and $100 (you could do this to whatever decimal point you want).

Congratulations. You've demonstrated that from the perspective of the "couch potato", they value $100 more than the time/ease of not reading the book. From the perspective of the person offerring the cash, they value the person reading the book more than $100.

 

Now, if you had a defined value function for adding money, some log function no doubt, then you would know exactly how much value had to be transferred to the couch potato in order to get him/her/ze/zir to read the tome.

 

(for physicists, if value is a state function then just define a reverable process connecting the two points in state-space).

Yes. But you have not established that $100 would be enough incentive to get the couch potato to read the book at some other point in time, nor that any other person would be willing to read the book if paid $100. Many might be incentivized to read the book for less than $20, and others might not be incentivized to read the book by any amount less than $1000.  Furthermore, you have not demonstrated that the individual paying the $100 would always be willing to pay $100 for someone else to read the book. The individual at some other point in time might only be willing to pay someone $10, or at another time may be willing to pay someone as much as  $10K. Furthermore, you have not established that Everyone would be willing to pay the person $100 to read the book, or even $1, much less $1000 or more.

 

I think perhaps you simply misunderstood the point I was making.

[Guest Gee]

Congratulations. You've demonstrated that from the perspective of the "couch potato", they value $100 more than the time/ease of not reading the book. From the perspective of the person offerring the cash, they value the person reading the book more than $100.

 

Yes. But you have not established that $100 would be enough incentive to get the couch potato to read the book at some other point, nor that any person would be willing to read the book if paid $100. Many might be incentivized to read the book for less than $20, and other might not be incentivized to read the book by any amount less than $1000.  Furthermore, you have not demonstrated that the individual paying the $100 would always be willing to pay $100 for someone them to read the book. The individual at some other point in time might only be willing to pay someone $10, or at another time may be willing to pay someone as much as  $10K. Furthermore, you have not established that Everyone would be willing to pay the person $100 to read the book, or even $1, much less $1000 or more.

 

I think perhaps you simply misunderstood the point I was making.

 

I don't think so. Conceptually, value would be like the altitude when climbing a mountain. The path you take climbing between two different altitudes really doesn't matter, so none of the stuff you mentioned would matter.

But doesn't the subjectivity lie in the fact that this price will be different dependent on the potato?

 

I think the preference is subjective, but the value? I don't think so. Like, say I have two different beakers of chemicals which can, if enough heat is added, turn into Dr Pepper. If the ammount of heat I have to add is different for the two beakers of chemicals, do I get to say that is subjective?

 

Preferences? Absolutly, they don't exist outside of the mind, 100% subjective. But value? I don't think so.

 

Here is one great thing about mathematics, you avoid muddy definitions.

 

Here is an example, I go through the exact same measurement process and find the ammount at which if I deduct 1 cent then the answer is no.

 

Person A: Cost $100

Person B: Cost $1

 

But the change in value for both people is the same, it is the change in value of whatever +$0.01 represents (which we can define easily).

[EclecticIdealist]

I don't think so. Conceptually, value would be like the altitude when climbing a mountain. The path you take climbing between two different altitudes really doesn't matter, so none of the stuff you mentioned would matter.

Nope. $100 does not equal $1000.  The height of the mountain doesn't change depending on the day, the time of day or the person climbing it. Value is subjective. Altitude is objective.

 

I think the preference is subjective, but the value? I don't think so. Like, say I have two different beakers of chemicals which can, if enough heat is added, turn into Dr Pepper. If the amount of heat I have to add is different for the two beakers of chemicals, do I get to say that is subjective?

No, but now you're talking about objective, empirical quantities, not economic value. Economic value is not a zero sum game.Here is one great thing about mathematics, you avoid muddy definitions.

 

Here is an example, I go through the exact same measurement process and find the amount at which if I deduct 1 cent then the answer is no.

 

Person A: Cost $100

Person B: Cost $1

 

But the change in value for both people is the same, it is the change in value of whatever +$0.01 represents (which we can define easily).

Let's see if I have this right.

 

Person A cost = $99.99 + $0.01 or Person A cost = c_a + v_a

Person B cost = $0.99 + $0.01   or Person B cost = c_b + v_b

 

You're saying that because v_a = v_b that you can simply ignore c_a and c_b? That they don't factor into the value? Were you taught economic theory by Karl Marx or one of his followers? What you're saying simply doesn't make any economic sense whatsoever. Value is subjective. Preference is subjective. In fact, Value is nothing more than an expression of relative preference... value is preferring one thing more than another thing or preferring something more than nothing, or preferring nothing more than something one does not want at all.

 

if you want to express UPB in terms of some kind of economic formula of sorts, it would be rendered something like this:

 

w_a = economic value (wealth) possessed by a

w_b = economic value (wealth) possessed by b

v_n = economic value (wealth) transferred to b from a

v_m = economic value (wealth) transferred to a from b

p = perceptual modifier of a

q = perceptual modifier of b

 

( pw_a - pv_n + pv_m ) + ( qw_b - qv_m + qv_n ) >= 0  where pv_m >= pv_n and qv_n >= qv_m

 

( pw_a - pv_n + pv_m ) + ( qw_b - qv_m + qv_n ) < 0  where pv_m < pv_n and/or qv_n < qv_m

[Tyler H]

 

( pw_a - pv_n + pv_m ) + ( qw_b - qv_m + qv_n ) >= 0  where pv_m >= pv_n and qv_n >= qv_m

 

( pw_a - pv_n + pv_m ) + ( qw_b - qv_m + qv_n ) < 0  where pv_m < pv_n and/or qv_n < qv_m

I think I understand this, but why is = included in the first formula? If the perceived value exchange was 0 why would the transaction happen? ....Ah, is it then the perfect transaction because both parties value each other's item to exactly the same degree more than their own?