How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again! (Mark Twain)
Crystal balls
After the kerfuffle below regarding the uselessness of economics, one might logically ask the following:
Why have economic policy? If we can’t know the future, and if the present and past have too much data to analyze intelligently, why even try?
The answer is that large policies have outcomes. We can’t know all of them, but we can make reasonable guesses. Take, for instance, Social Security – we are told by policy wonks that it is either going to do the hockey stick on us, mounting so much future liability that it will absorb our entire economic engine, or that it is solvent through 2040. Which is true? Certainly not the former, as we would change course if the program got out of hand (which it hasn’t). And, sadly, not the latter either, as we did not know last year that current expenses would exceed current receipts this year.
So here is a policy suggestion: Attempt to get good outcomes, avoid bad ones, and avoid charlatans. Learn to recognize charlatans – usually, the first clue is they seem to be very certain about the future.
Social Security account managerThis much we know: The program has existed and never failed to pay a benefit for 70 years. That’s a good thing. Here’s what we also know: If we turn its management over to Wall Street, we will have no history of investment bankers running government programs during which good things happen, and a lot of history investment bankers gone wild where bad things have happened.
It’s really a no-brainer. Avoid Wall Street, and privatization.
The real Laffer CurveThe same goes for just about every other policy question – high marginal tax rates? It might alleviate (not cure) many of our current ills, like high income disparity, bubble investing, and concentrated wealth overrunning democratic governance, such as it is. So why not give it a try? The only thing that the past tells us about high marginal tax rates is that they don’t hurt much – they were kind of like the unnamed version of the Laffer Curve. By punishing people for certain behaviors (dis-investing in businesses, overpaying themselves), we encouraged other behaviors (investment in plant and equipment, avoidance of mansions and yachts). It wasn’t all good, but overall, it wasn’t bad.
Mentally illI have often referred to myself as a “European-style socialist,” and I stand by that. I don’t hold that socialism is better than capitalism, but rather that the two descriptive ideas of various behaviors seem to meld well for good outcomes. “Free market” advocates (it’s a clever phrase that implies good and masks bad … who doesn’t want to be “free!”) say that because certain Europeans countries are doing things differently than us, they are going to fail.
1) They don’t know this, can’t know this. 2) There are charlatans at work, again. Notice that they are certain about the future? There is a whole industry in this country of think tanks and bought priests who preach the wonders of “free” markets, and it is all so simple to figure out: Follow the money. Who bought all these people? The Koch brothers, the Waltons, Steve Forbes and other recognizable names. Already-wealthy people who want to stay wealthy. Duh.
Supremely stupidNot everyone on the right wing is “bought.” Many are just stupid or suffering from Ayn Rand’s polemics. That damned book is like a siren song! Some are being manipulated (Tea Party). Some are very smart, but supremely stupid as they focus intensely on a few things and ignore everything else (Budge, Natelson, Kavulla). But more importantly, there is much of value on the so-called “right” – caution in formulating large policy changes, respect for wisdom of the past, fiscal prudence, respect for individual liberty (not “freedom”) – that we all need to respect.
If only the right wing would go back to being the right wing, if only the “left” even existed in this country, we could again have reasonable policy discussions. For now it’s a frenzy of stupids and crazies on one side, and weaklings and shills on the other.
I hope we make it through this period. I hope Social Security survives the onslaught. But I don’t know the future.
Social Security has enjoyed favorable demographics until recently. We shall see how it survives the plunge.
Social Security is essentially a taxpayer funded pension system. I imagine we will be able to juggle benefit levels, retirement age, and tax levels to keep something going.
But as we gather more information in this information age, certain fairness issues come to light. A large extended family on one side works hard and are very productive, and they reliably die before the age of 65. A family on the other side live on welfare their whole lives and often live into their 90s. As family chronicles are written down, as genetic screening and such pinpoints life expectancy, the first family begins to ask why they should support the system.
Question: If we already had lots of information but did not know how to use it, how is having more information going to help us?
The second point is anecdotal and emotional. With every large system there are going to be minor injustices. And, that same family might be happy to have SS if the breadwinner dies, and the other spouse needs help supporting the children, or if one or both should become disabled. Those are two things that Social Security does that are not talked about, and for which the private sector offers no affordable alternative.
Some information is more usable than others. Our ability to use information changes over time.
With every large system there are going to be minor injustices.
One man’s minor is another man’s major.
We need to run the system in a way that keeps people interested in participating, kind of a big ultimatum game.
A year and a half ago, or so, you gave us your internal dialog on whether or not to continue to buy private insurance, that maybe you should opt out and tough it out alone. Maybe that same conversation could take place about Social Security, with a like minded group banding together and pooling their SS money for their own retirement.
Some website’s chortle at the changing demographics. Our burgeoning Latino et al population may one day see themselves paying quite a bit of money that supports a doddering cohort of pale people and think twice about the arrangement. Out group altruism is more of a White people thing.
It has no value to me, thus cannot have intrinsic value
They are valuable to you – and if someone wanted them, you would sell them at a price equal or higher than your value, and your trade partner would pay at or lower than what he saw value in them.
Value is individual, thus there is no such thing as intrinsic.
it has no value to me, thus cannot have intrinsic value
Intrinsic values lie outside of the human value system. Therefore your declaration “has no value to me” has no meaning. And your conclusion “thus cannot have intrinsic value” therefore is false.
I’d work through the reasoning behind this, but you are just a charlatan trying to sell me snake oil, and I don’t bargain with charlatans.
If you continually want to describe the world about you only in terms of human abstractions, then you necessarily will lead a very limited and pitiful life.
Does not a dog value the friendship of its person?
Does not a tree value the soil in which its roots live?
Because we cannot understand or describe what a tree or a dog values in anything but anthropocentric terms, we allow that they have “intrinsic” (“belonging to a thing by its very nature”) values: values that are not ascribed by humans, or necessarily understood by humans.
Your denial of intrinsic values underscores your inability to understand the true nature of the world about you. You are a reductionist that attempts to fit your perception of the world into a narrow box. And as such, your ability to enjoy or describe what the world truly has to offer is a pittance.
If you continually want to describe the world about you only in terms of human abstractions, then you necessarily will lead a very limited and pitiful life.
JC, I don’t know how to be more clear than I have.
Value is individual – what YOU value is not what I VALUE
Therefore, VALUE is determined by PEOPLE Individually and nothing else.
Does not a dog value the friendship of its person?
I cannot “talk to the animals” like Dr. Dolittle to ask their opinions or expressions of value.
I value as a human being, not as a dog.
Does not a tree value the soil in which its roots live?
I do not have the ability to discuss this wtih trees. I have found them to be quite mute on the subject of value.
Because we cannot understand or describe what a tree or a dog values in anything but anthropocentric terms, we allow that they have “intrinsic” (“belonging to a thing by its very nature”) values: values that are not ascribed by humans, or necessarily understood by humans.
Let me be clear, one more time:
Value is a HUMAN abstraction
If something is NOT valued by a human it has NO value.
The subjective theory of value (or theory of subjective value) is an economic theory of value that holds that to possess value an object must be both useful and scarce,[citation needed] with the extent of that value dependent upon the ability of an object to satisfy the wants of any given individual. “Value” here is distinct from exchange value or price. The theory recognizes that one thing may be more useful in satisfying the wants of one person than another, or of no use to one person and of use to another. The theory contrasts with intrinsic theories of value that hold that there is an objectively correct value of an object that can be determined irrespective of individual value judgments, such as by analyzing the amount of labor incurred in producing the object (see labor theory of value).
So, within this framework, your world view simply is unqualified.
You are neither the subjective value theorist, nor are you the intrinsic value theorist (as you DO NOT analyze labor inputs to your “dog value” belief)
I don’t choose to analyze or debate “value” either through your subjective theory, or your notions of “intrinsic theories of value” that derive from human utilitarian analysis.
I choose to accept the notion that things have value outside of human constructs, values I may not comprehend or ever even notice. That intrinsic values, as I referenced above, “belonging to a thing by its very nature” are neither granted, nor quantified by humans.
It is an axiom by which I (and many, many others) choose to construct alternative views of the world about me: the nonhuman world has intrinsic value.
I do not live in a strictly utilitarian and purposeful world. I live in a world full of random and beautiful events. I do not try and quantify the value of things like wilderness and species diversity. I grant that they have intrinsic value, and that those values must be protected. As humans cannot quantify those values, the protection of them must necessarily fall outside of the realm of economic thought, lest they be subjected to things like “subjective theory of value” or “labor theory of value” or economic “intrinsic theories of value.”
Why can’t you just admit that your singular view of the world through the lens of economics is rudimentary and insufficient to account for even the simplest of joys: a dog’s affection for his master, or of a tree’s appreciation of the fertile soil that feeds it in the wilderness?
I choose to accept the notion that things have value outside of human constructs, values I may not comprehend or ever even notice.
So, the root of your claim is that the concept of value was not conceived by human thought?
That intrinsic values, as I referenced above, “belonging to a thing by its very nature” are neither granted, nor quantified by humans.
So, given you think trees value trees, how do you reconcile you cutting down a tree to build your house?
Do you discuss the matter with the tree before hand, analysis your comparative value sets, and debate -winner take all?
How do you measure the tree’s self-value vs. the level of value you have for the house you live in?
It is an axiom by which I (and many, many others) choose to construct alternative views of the world about me: the nonhuman world has intrinsic value.
But, you -being human- is the only one who assigns that value, true?
The rock doesn’t participate in your debate about how valuable it thinks it is, true?
The tree doesn’t submit an essay explaining its self-perception of its value, true?
You assign these values to them, true?
So if you assign a “zero” or a “kazillion”, the tree does not complain or cheer, true?
So if YOU are the one assigning and YOU are the one determining and YOU are the one measuring ….. I’d suggest that VALUE derives from an abstraction from YOU.
(You being “human being”)
As humans cannot quantify those values, the protection of them must necessarily fall outside of the realm of economic thought, lest they be subjected to things like “subjective theory of value” or “labor theory of value” or economic “intrinsic theories of value.”
But what you just said cannot be true.
You DO quantify those values.
You value YOUR LIFE more than a Cow – you eat it.
You value YOUR LIFE more than a tree – you cut it down to build your house.
You value YOUR LIFE more than a rock – you crush it to make your foundation.
You might not be articulating a precise numeric to this value, but you HAVE assigned this TO these things and this assignments exists or you could not eat a cow, cut down a tree or crush a rock.
Why can’t you just admit that your singular view of the world through the lens of economics is rudimentary and insufficient to account for even the simplest of joys: a dog’s affection for his master, or of a tree’s appreciation of the fertile soil that feeds it in the wilderness?
Not only are you reductionist, utilitarian, anthropocentric and anachronistic, now you reveal that you are also an existentialist.
You have all the weaknesses that will predispose you to a life unfulfilled because of your pursuit of a singular ideology and world view that will never come to fruition.
I on the other hand do not rely on human constructs to place intrinsic values in my life, or into the nonhuman world. I rest easy because wilderness still exists, whether I am aware of, or experience its existence.
You are incapable of understanding or experiencing true intrinsic values because you choose to construct a world that only contains human values.
That is why debating you is like debating a two year-old. Your singular purpose does not allow you to step outside of yourself and to see the world in a new way. And it is why I choose not to engage in your form of debate, because doing so, like with debating a two year-old, would turn me into a babbling idiot.
You want to control the debate, and the style of debate, ever working it back to your singular mantra. You are nothing more than a propagandist for an ideology that will never come to fruition, no matter how hard you beat your head against the wall. You forever will remain unfulfilled, unless you open your mind to the world around you and put away your prejudice.
Not only are you reductionist, utilitarian, anthropocentric and anachronistic, now you reveal that you are also an existentialist.
…and you will run out of labels before you even come close in describing me….
You have all the weaknesses that will predispose you to a life unfulfilled because of your pursuit of a singular ideology and world view that will never come to fruition.
There ya go!
I’m a pretty happy guy, pretty successful, and pretty fulfilled.
Maybe you’re looking in a mirror?
I on the other hand do not rely on human constructs to place intrinsic values in my life, or into the nonhuman world. I rest easy because wilderness still exists, whether I am aware of, or experience its existence.
Good for you!
But is it still you you is valuing all that wonderful stuff
(PS: I did notice you failed to answer my questions regarding how you reconcile cutting down trees and eating cows with them having intrinsic value….)
You are incapable of understanding or experiencing true intrinsic values because you choose to construct a world that only contains human values.
There is nothing to understand about something that does not exist.
Intrinsic value -as you define it- does not exist.
Value is a human abstraction. It is not a tree abstraction, nor a concept that rocks thought of…
That is why debating you is like debating a two year-old. Your singular purpose does not allow you to step outside of yourself and to see the world in a new way. And it is why I choose not to engage in your form of debate, because doing so, like with debating a two year-old, would turn me into a babbling idiot.
You do not need any help or input from me for you to be a babbling idiot.
You want to control the debate, and the style of debate, ever working it back to your singular mantra. You are nothing more than a propagandist for an ideology that will never come to fruition, no matter how hard you beat your head against the wall. You forever will remain unfulfilled, unless you open your mind to the world around you and put away your prejudice.
Yeah, I am a simple man, JC.
I am peaceful, non-violent, freedom loving, wealth creator.
And you hate every one of those qualities with an unrelenting passion.
Don’t fret about me, JC – worry about yourself and just leave me alone.
Ooops, but ya just can’t do that, can you? .. because you want my money!
Amen. He is like a christian fundamentalist who has taken the “man shall have domain” idea a bit too seriously. We are part of life, but we are not the meaning of life. We are merely self-aware, and that may be an evolutionary accident.
We are not just part of life, but part of the Universe.
We are self-aware, and that is pretty amazing in a Universe where 99.99999999999999999999999% of the stuff we know of isn’t.
Accident?
Nah, it was bound to happen. Things like us happen if given a very long, long, long time over a very, very, very big place full of stuff.
You being born is a probability that is so small as to be a miracle of miracles – the line of occurrences of your parents, grandparents, great grandparents, meeting, surviving, escaping within an inch of their lives ….
…so a bit further down the path… JC breaks the long silence of thought with this outburst…
JC: Ha! SOME things have intrinsic value, but other things might not. Like rocks, some rocks may have no intrinsic value, but that tree over there has!
Mark, cheerleader’s and says: “HA! Checkmate!”
BF: “Interesting, but how did you choose that rock having no value, but …(and picks up a rock packed full of diamonds) …this rock HAS value?”
Mark: “Damn! You found a rock of diamonds, how are you so lucky!”
BF: “I studied in school while you were starring out the window….”
We can title your fantasy “Of Charlatans and Snake Oil: Paeans to a False God.”
I ain’t buying what you’re selling BF. You’re like a two year-old with a shiny new toy. You can’t let go of it because it is the center of your universe. Only the rest of us see that it really is just a piece of plastic crap. But you’re happy, and that’s all that counts in your world.
ANd thus you will never understand the concept of intrinsic value, as you cannot conceive of a value that does not translate into money.
I agree with BF in the sense that when talking public policy or human events we explicitly or implicitly assign value. To Everything. We have to. Everything has an opportunity cost. Everything.
I agree with JC in the sense that we don’t know the value of everything or that our current accounting doesn’t reflect its ultimate value. Wilderness has a value beyond the break up value for development. The asteroid best has no value to us now, but might be huge to a future Earth depleted of resources.
You make points that are either obtuse or tstm – too small to matter, and then wrap your debate around them as if they were of importance. Trees are valuable for birds and bugs. Sharks are important for remora. If there are no humans, these relationships do not change. Further, wilderness and trees have climate and aesthetic value.
All of these things exist, but are outside your frame of reference. You are the problem here. Physician, heal thyself.
I think of this as a smaller circle inside a larger one. Inside the small circle is human experience where we put a value on everything. The larger circle includes the things outside human experience. There is some talk that the most valuable thing might be Helium 4 in the atmosphere of Jupiter if humans spool up the technology to use it. Right now we can’t value it. The value of wilderness to future generations is difficult to pin down. It is something outside our experience. Tokarski thinks it is very valuable, I want to cover it in concrete. The unsureness here puts it in the larger circle.
The larger circle includes the things outside human experience.
So let’s stretch this thread.
You are saying, if I may paraphrase, that there are things inside the human experience (because you -being human- you are making a JUDGMENT about other things, called the Universe) that are outside of the human experience.
So, using logic notation to highlight your statement
You stated that trees were of no value unless we cut them down to build houses. I noted their importance to other species, and their aesthetic value. But in the end, the matter we are discussing is of no importance, like angles angels on the head of a pin. You say value originates with self-aware humans. Fine. Think that. It’s nonsense, but let’s drop it.
You stated that trees were of no value unless we cut them down to build houses.
Where did I say that, Mark?
Making up stories about me again?
Not even close.
I said: Unless a human assigns value, there is no value
or
If something is NOT valued by a human it has NO value.
If you value a tree for its shade – it you, human Mark, assigning value that tree.
I noted their importance to other species, and their aesthetic value
Yes you do, and read over and over again until your brain achieves epiphany.
I …note…their…value
But in the end, the matter we are discussing is of no importance, like angles angels on the head of a pin. You say value originates with self-aware humans. Fine. Think that. It’s nonsense, but let’s drop it.
It is not a trivial point.
All value is assigned by humans.
The assignment of value, by a human, is individual and subjective to that individual.
What you value something does not or need not be the same value I assign to that something.
The difference of our assignment of values creates the potential for trade – for you will only trade something of lower value to get something of higher value, and so will I.
Because you value something higher than I, you will want it. If I value something higher than you, you will trade it.
The exchange: you get something you value higher, and I get something I value higher.
We both end up, after the trade, with what we value higher than before our trade.
I don’t know where you said that – somewhere in all this jumble, and maybe I read too much into it. But this is why I don’t truck with you, why I would turn you down if you tried to pick me up when I was hitchhiking. One, you’re muddled, intensely driven on making points of no importance. Two, you don’t know people well, as we are far more than you say. Three, you’re a one-note Sally, making the same point over and over again to no avail. If I say look at the lawn, you say that individual blades of grass have no need for one another, I say that’s nonsense, you say that it’s very important, and before you know it, the thread is five miles deep and nothing that was not already know already uncovered. You’re far to driven on the isolation and bartering instincts of humans. That’s a byproduct of agriculture, and not part of our evolution, or at least not of the importance you assign.
– somewhere in all this jumble, and maybe I read too much into it.
The common issue: you apply irrational emotion into someone else’s comment.
But this is why I don’t truck with you, why I would turn you down if you tried to pick me up when I was hitchhiking.
Don’t worry, I wouldn’t stop to pick you up.
One, you’re muddled, intensely driven on making points of no importance.
I am not the muddled one here.
The points are root and basic – a place where you have nothing of substance.
You attempt to proclaim dangerous policies without awareness nor car about any basics – and thus risk wrecking society.
You demanded the basis of my arguments – and we begin at those basics.
But even here you are confused and muddled.
You have no argument.
You never have an argument.
Your ideas are irrational and confused.
You do not even have a coherent understanding of basic concepts like “value” or “action”.
Then you believe you have the “right” answers to problems in society.
Two, you don’t know people well, as we are far more than you say.
Even here, you are irrational and incoherent.
Here you are, claiming people are “far more” – yet it is you who wishes to steal from them, and force them by violence to surrender their property and wealth for your pleasures
I am stating that you should leave them alone to find their own happiness – and to you, it is I who does not understand people.
Three, you’re a one-note Sally, making the same point over and over again to no avail.
Your ignorance is immutable, but it is true I still try.
If I say look at the lawn, you say that individual blades of grass have no need for one another, I say that’s nonsense,
I agree. What you say here is nonsense for again I have never said such a thing
I do not know what is wrong with your brain, but you do not have good comprehension abilities.
you say that it’s very important, and before you know it, the thread is five miles deep and nothing that was not already know already uncovered.
But lots new ground is uncovered, because by your comments (and total lack of any argument) it is obvious you have never thought of theses things in the detail necessary for you to actually produce a coherent idea.
Long And boring!
Perhaps, but that the is the nature of Truth, Mark.
You see, it takes no brain to spew irrational nonsense as you and JC amply demonstrate. You do not have to “prove” irrational muck, because it is irrational. Thus, the irrational 3-second sound bites that you think is an argument.
So the irrational muck can be short – and since it is devoid of reason, it does not need to explain!
The Poor need Government Money.
Any time someone asks a question, you simply refer back to the same statement. You can’t prove it – because it is irrational – but because it is irrational, there is nothing to prove!
But the Truth does not have this.
The Truth is discovered by reason and it takes work, study, reading and lots of thinking to reason.
People demand “how did you get the answer of Truth”? They cannot accept irrational arguments and thus, the volumes -from basic principles to the complex understanding, must be laid out in an orderly, logical and reasoned way.
But you are the common man, Mark.
You see the pages and pages of proof from the very basic premise in the minute detail – with chapters upon chapters proving each and every small step towards the Universal Truth, and you say “Eeckkk!” and dare never read them.
But your ignorance does not stop you proclaiming policies derived from that ignorance.
And, frankly, you probably will be successful in enforcing these policies of ignorance, because there are a lot more people like you then me, and we all only get one vote – no matter how brilliant or stupid you are.
But the Truth is the Truth, no matter the vote on it.
After the kerfuffle below regarding the uselessness of economics, one might logically ask the following: 
Piece of Mindful 
Social Security has enjoyed favorable demographics until recently. We shall see how it survives the plunge.
Social Security is essentially a taxpayer funded pension system. I imagine we will be able to juggle benefit levels, retirement age, and tax levels to keep something going.
But as we gather more information in this information age, certain fairness issues come to light. A large extended family on one side works hard and are very productive, and they reliably die before the age of 65. A family on the other side live on welfare their whole lives and often live into their 90s. As family chronicles are written down, as genetic screening and such pinpoints life expectancy, the first family begins to ask why they should support the system.
LikeLike
Question: If we already had lots of information but did not know how to use it, how is having more information going to help us?
The second point is anecdotal and emotional. With every large system there are going to be minor injustices. And, that same family might be happy to have SS if the breadwinner dies, and the other spouse needs help supporting the children, or if one or both should become disabled. Those are two things that Social Security does that are not talked about, and for which the private sector offers no affordable alternative.
LikeLike
Mark,
Your cry is consistent. You want people to pay for you.
You want them to subordinate themselves for you wants, but you refuse to subordinate your want to their rights.
You are a one way street.
“Goods for me, costs for you”
LikeLike
…how is having more information going to help us?
Some information is more usable than others. Our ability to use information changes over time.
With every large system there are going to be minor injustices.
One man’s minor is another man’s major.
We need to run the system in a way that keeps people interested in participating, kind of a big ultimatum game.
A year and a half ago, or so, you gave us your internal dialog on whether or not to continue to buy private insurance, that maybe you should opt out and tough it out alone. Maybe that same conversation could take place about Social Security, with a like minded group banding together and pooling their SS money for their own retirement.
Some website’s chortle at the changing demographics. Our burgeoning Latino et al population may one day see themselves paying quite a bit of money that supports a doddering cohort of pale people and think twice about the arrangement. Out group altruism is more of a White people thing.
LikeLike
I don’t why they call it the “free market.” Those guys just want you to pay for everything!
And in 3… 2… 1…
LikeLike
JC,
Good one!
But there is no such thing as a free lunch – somebody, somewhere always pays for it.
LikeLike
Um, cooked up a mess of mushrooms I picked out in the forest the other day for lunch yesterday.
Didn’t nobody, nowhere, nohow pay for it.
It’s that intrinsic value thing you don’t understand.
LikeLike
JC,
It has no value to me, thus cannot have intrinsic value
They are valuable to you – and if someone wanted them, you would sell them at a price equal or higher than your value, and your trade partner would pay at or lower than what he saw value in them.
Value is individual, thus there is no such thing as intrinsic.
LikeLike
Ah, charlatans with snake oil.
Thanks for the reminder Mark!
Intrinsic values lie outside of the human value system. Therefore your declaration “has no value to me” has no meaning. And your conclusion “thus cannot have intrinsic value” therefore is false.
I’d work through the reasoning behind this, but you are just a charlatan trying to sell me snake oil, and I don’t bargain with charlatans.
LikeLike
JC,
How can “value” -which is a human abstraction- exist outside of human value system???
LikeLike
If you continually want to describe the world about you only in terms of human abstractions, then you necessarily will lead a very limited and pitiful life.
Does not a dog value the friendship of its person?
Does not a tree value the soil in which its roots live?
Because we cannot understand or describe what a tree or a dog values in anything but anthropocentric terms, we allow that they have “intrinsic” (“belonging to a thing by its very nature”) values: values that are not ascribed by humans, or necessarily understood by humans.
Your denial of intrinsic values underscores your inability to understand the true nature of the world about you. You are a reductionist that attempts to fit your perception of the world into a narrow box. And as such, your ability to enjoy or describe what the world truly has to offer is a pittance.
LikeLike
JC
JC, I don’t know how to be more clear than I have.
Value is individual – what YOU value is not what I VALUE
Therefore, VALUE is determined by PEOPLE Individually and nothing else.
I cannot “talk to the animals” like Dr. Dolittle to ask their opinions or expressions of value.
I value as a human being, not as a dog.
I do not have the ability to discuss this wtih trees. I have found them to be quite mute on the subject of value.
Let me be clear, one more time:
Value is a HUMAN abstraction
If something is NOT valued by a human it has NO value.
LikeLike
I find that one of the saddest things I have ever read.
LikeLike
JC
Chew on this.
The subjective theory of value (or theory of subjective value) is an economic theory of value that holds that to possess value an object must be both useful and scarce,[citation needed] with the extent of that value dependent upon the ability of an object to satisfy the wants of any given individual. “Value” here is distinct from exchange value or price. The theory recognizes that one thing may be more useful in satisfying the wants of one person than another, or of no use to one person and of use to another. The theory contrasts with intrinsic theories of value that hold that there is an objectively correct value of an object that can be determined irrespective of individual value judgments, such as by analyzing the amount of labor incurred in producing the object (see labor theory of value).
So, within this framework, your world view simply is unqualified.
You are neither the subjective value theorist, nor are you the intrinsic value theorist (as you DO NOT analyze labor inputs to your “dog value” belief)
LikeLike
I don’t choose to analyze or debate “value” either through your subjective theory, or your notions of “intrinsic theories of value” that derive from human utilitarian analysis.
I choose to accept the notion that things have value outside of human constructs, values I may not comprehend or ever even notice. That intrinsic values, as I referenced above, “belonging to a thing by its very nature” are neither granted, nor quantified by humans.
It is an axiom by which I (and many, many others) choose to construct alternative views of the world about me: the nonhuman world has intrinsic value.
I do not live in a strictly utilitarian and purposeful world. I live in a world full of random and beautiful events. I do not try and quantify the value of things like wilderness and species diversity. I grant that they have intrinsic value, and that those values must be protected. As humans cannot quantify those values, the protection of them must necessarily fall outside of the realm of economic thought, lest they be subjected to things like “subjective theory of value” or “labor theory of value” or economic “intrinsic theories of value.”
Why can’t you just admit that your singular view of the world through the lens of economics is rudimentary and insufficient to account for even the simplest of joys: a dog’s affection for his master, or of a tree’s appreciation of the fertile soil that feeds it in the wilderness?
LikeLike
JC,
So, the root of your claim is that the concept of value was not conceived by human thought?
So, given you think trees value trees, how do you reconcile you cutting down a tree to build your house?
Do you discuss the matter with the tree before hand, analysis your comparative value sets, and debate -winner take all?
How do you measure the tree’s self-value vs. the level of value you have for the house you live in?
But, you -being human- is the only one who assigns that value, true?
The rock doesn’t participate in your debate about how valuable it thinks it is, true?
The tree doesn’t submit an essay explaining its self-perception of its value, true?
You assign these values to them, true?
So if you assign a “zero” or a “kazillion”, the tree does not complain or cheer, true?
So if YOU are the one assigning and YOU are the one determining and YOU are the one measuring ….. I’d suggest that VALUE derives from an abstraction from YOU.
(You being “human being”)
Not only are you reductionist, utilitarian, anthropocentric and anachronistic, now you reveal that you are also an existentialist.
You have all the weaknesses that will predispose you to a life unfulfilled because of your pursuit of a singular ideology and world view that will never come to fruition.
I on the other hand do not rely on human constructs to place intrinsic values in my life, or into the nonhuman world. I rest easy because wilderness still exists, whether I am aware of, or experience its existence.
You are incapable of understanding or experiencing true intrinsic values because you choose to construct a world that only contains human values.
That is why debating you is like debating a two year-old. Your singular purpose does not allow you to step outside of yourself and to see the world in a new way. And it is why I choose not to engage in your form of debate, because doing so, like with debating a two year-old, would turn me into a babbling idiot.
You want to control the debate, and the style of debate, ever working it back to your singular mantra. You are nothing more than a propagandist for an ideology that will never come to fruition, no matter how hard you beat your head against the wall. You forever will remain unfulfilled, unless you open your mind to the world around you and put away your prejudice.
LikeLike
JC,
…and you will run out of labels before you even come close in describing me….
There ya go!
I’m a pretty happy guy, pretty successful, and pretty fulfilled.
Maybe you’re looking in a mirror?
Good for you!
But is it still you you is valuing all that wonderful stuff
(PS: I did notice you failed to answer my questions regarding how you reconcile cutting down trees and eating cows with them having intrinsic value….)
There is nothing to understand about something that does not exist.
Intrinsic value -as you define it- does not exist.
Value is a human abstraction. It is not a tree abstraction, nor a concept that rocks thought of…
You do not need any help or input from me for you to be a babbling idiot.
Yeah, I am a simple man, JC.
I am peaceful, non-violent, freedom loving, wealth creator.
And you hate every one of those qualities with an unrelenting passion.
Don’t fret about me, JC – worry about yourself and just leave me alone.
Ooops, but ya just can’t do that, can you? .. because you want my money!
LikeLike
Amen. He is like a christian fundamentalist who has taken the “man shall have domain” idea a bit too seriously. We are part of life, but we are not the meaning of life. We are merely self-aware, and that may be an evolutionary accident.
LikeLike
Mark,
We are not just part of life, but part of the Universe.
We are self-aware, and that is pretty amazing in a Universe where 99.99999999999999999999999% of the stuff we know of isn’t.
Accident?
Nah, it was bound to happen. Things like us happen if given a very long, long, long time over a very, very, very big place full of stuff.
You being born is a probability that is so small as to be a miracle of miracles – the line of occurrences of your parents, grandparents, great grandparents, meeting, surviving, escaping within an inch of their lives ….
…yet, there you are.
LikeLike
Mark, JC:
So let’s take a little walk down a path of logic:
We see an object, X, on the side of the path.
JC says: “That object has value! I’d buy that (if I had any money….can I borrow some, BF??)”
Mark says: “Ah! I’ll pay to have that object destroyed! (can I borrow some, BF, I promise to pay it back whether I have to steal it or not!)”
BF says: “Nah, it has no value – I’d neither pay to destroy it nor buy it, (and no, to both of you, I’m not a bank!)”
Are we all correct?
Can JC see value while…
Mark sees negative value while…
BF sees no value???
If we agree we all can see a different value….
and that includes seeing negative value…
it must include zero value.
But if a thing can have zero value, then how can it have intrinsic value (as defined by JC)???
LikeLike
…so a bit further down the path… JC breaks the long silence of thought with this outburst…
JC: Ha! SOME things have intrinsic value, but other things might not. Like rocks, some rocks may have no intrinsic value, but that tree over there has!
Mark, cheerleader’s and says: “HA! Checkmate!”
BF: “Interesting, but how did you choose that rock having no value, but …(and picks up a rock packed full of diamonds) …this rock HAS value?”
Mark: “Damn! You found a rock of diamonds, how are you so lucky!”
BF: “I studied in school while you were starring out the window….”
JC: “Well everyone knows diamonds are valuable!”
BF: “Oh? These guys don’t
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080530-uncontacted-tribes-photo.html”
…so really it is YOU, JC, deciding which one is valuable and which one is not. Diamonds – you value, the Amazon tribe, no value.
BF: …no INTRINSIC value…just HUMAN-assigned value, subject to the individual…
Mark: I hate chess.
LikeLike
We can title your fantasy “Of Charlatans and Snake Oil: Paeans to a False God.”
I ain’t buying what you’re selling BF. You’re like a two year-old with a shiny new toy. You can’t let go of it because it is the center of your universe. Only the rest of us see that it really is just a piece of plastic crap. But you’re happy, and that’s all that counts in your world.
ANd thus you will never understand the concept of intrinsic value, as you cannot conceive of a value that does not translate into money.
LikeLike
I think you two are talking past each other.
I agree with BF in the sense that when talking public policy or human events we explicitly or implicitly assign value. To Everything. We have to. Everything has an opportunity cost. Everything.
I agree with JC in the sense that we don’t know the value of everything or that our current accounting doesn’t reflect its ultimate value. Wilderness has a value beyond the break up value for development. The asteroid best has no value to us now, but might be huge to a future Earth depleted of resources.
LikeLike
Rightside,
But even in you demonstrate it does not have value until a person assigns it.
Wilderness does not have a “value” beyond its value assigned right now. That is why we do cut down trees to build houses.
LikeLike
JC,
You consistently show you are incapable of reason, debate and dialogue.
You are demagogue, through and through.
LikeLike
You make points that are either obtuse or tstm – too small to matter, and then wrap your debate around them as if they were of importance. Trees are valuable for birds and bugs. Sharks are important for remora. If there are no humans, these relationships do not change. Further, wilderness and trees have climate and aesthetic value.
All of these things exist, but are outside your frame of reference. You are the problem here. Physician, heal thyself.
LikeLike
Mark,
Trees are important for birds, but unless a human values the bird, it has no value.
Humans not on Earth makes the Earth redundant to humans, since we are not here!
And this diddy, which amply demonstrates the total self-confusion of you and JC
…wilderness and trees have climate and aesthetic value…
Aesthetic is a human abstraction.
Trees do not judge aesthetic value – humans do.
LikeLike
tstm
LikeLike
?tstm?
Means…?
LikeLike
Yep, not paying attention.
LikeLike
Black Flag,
My thinking here is a work in progress. You’re ahead of me. Give me chance to catch up.
There is a difference in values, and this reflects the uncertainty inherent in the world from lack of information and future knowledge.
JC and Mark claim to know more than us, so they claim their assignment of value is more accurate than ours.
Now you know. So put your head down and follow your betters.
LikeLike
Too small to matter.
I think of this as a smaller circle inside a larger one. Inside the small circle is human experience where we put a value on everything. The larger circle includes the things outside human experience. There is some talk that the most valuable thing might be Helium 4 in the atmosphere of Jupiter if humans spool up the technology to use it. Right now we can’t value it. The value of wilderness to future generations is difficult to pin down. It is something outside our experience. Tokarski thinks it is very valuable, I want to cover it in concrete. The unsureness here puts it in the larger circle.
LikeLike
Rightside,
So let’s stretch this thread.
You are saying, if I may paraphrase, that there are things inside the human experience (because you -being human- you are making a JUDGMENT about other things, called the Universe) that are outside of the human experience.
So, using logic notation to highlight your statement
Set(A) (human experience) > Set(A) (human experiences) + Set(C) (outside human experience)
or,
A>A+C …but!… <– that statement is irrational. It is saying the Human Experience is GREATER than the Human Experience!
So who is doing the talking? Trees? Dogs? Aliens on Mars?
…or human beings postulating value or future value.
But you just did.
You gave it a value greater than zero.
Don’t confuse a measure accuracy with an articulation of value.
Agreed. It will be:
(1) greater
(2) lessor
(3) the same.
No, you experience it right now.
The future does not exist in the present!
You are describing a difference of value – not any thing intrinsic to the object! Review my “walk along a path” post.
No, it is the same circle.
Human value is subjective to the individual
LikeLike
You stated that trees were of no value unless we cut them down to build houses. I noted their importance to other species, and their aesthetic value. But in the end, the matter we are discussing is of no importance, like
anglesangels on the head of a pin. You say value originates with self-aware humans. Fine. Think that. It’s nonsense, but let’s drop it.LikeLike
Mark,
Where did I say that, Mark?
Making up stories about me again?
Not even close.
I said:
Unless a human assigns value, there is no value
or
If something is NOT valued by a human it has NO value.
If you value a tree for its shade – it you, human Mark, assigning value that tree.
Yes you do, and read over and over again until your brain achieves epiphany.
I …note…their…value
It is not a trivial point.
All value is assigned by humans.
The assignment of value, by a human, is individual and subjective to that individual.
What you value something does not or need not be the same value I assign to that something.
The difference of our assignment of values creates the potential for trade – for you will only trade something of lower value to get something of higher value, and so will I.
Because you value something higher than I, you will want it. If I value something higher than you, you will trade it.
The exchange: you get something you value higher, and I get something I value higher.
We both end up, after the trade, with what we value higher than before our trade.
LikeLike
Mark,
So you are thinking so what?
The “what”:
If JC is correct, hat is an object has intrinsic value then there exists a value that is objective – immune to the “human” valuation.
As such, there can be no difference of value and hence, no potential of trade.
But, humans trade! – so the premise – intrinsic value cannot exist.
LikeLike
I don’t know where you said that – somewhere in all this jumble, and maybe I read too much into it. But this is why I don’t truck with you, why I would turn you down if you tried to pick me up when I was hitchhiking. One, you’re muddled, intensely driven on making points of no importance. Two, you don’t know people well, as we are far more than you say. Three, you’re a one-note Sally, making the same point over and over again to no avail. If I say look at the lawn, you say that individual blades of grass have no need for one another, I say that’s nonsense, you say that it’s very important, and before you know it, the thread is five miles deep and nothing that was not already know already uncovered. You’re far to driven on the isolation and bartering instincts of humans. That’s a byproduct of agriculture, and not part of our evolution, or at least not of the importance you assign.
You’re way off the deep end. And boring!
LikeLike
Mark,
So just to be clear.
You raise the abstraction of “value”, assign it, apply it, and get confused about everything about it….
…and when challenged about it, you roll up what little remains of your reasoning and rational thinking and retreat into …
“it too small to matter”.
..and People wonder why human progress towards truth moves so slowly…
LikeLike
What do you know about “truth?”
LikeLike
Yep, not paying attention….
LikeLike
I pay attention plenty.
Now we can add “evangelist” to all the other labels I’ve draped on you.
LikeLike
Trying to elevate your fantasy of economic law to that of a “truth” is rather megalomaniacal.
LikeLike
Rightside,
Indeed, sir – that is the root of their message.
Cheers!
LikeLike
Mark,
No where.
The common issue: you apply irrational emotion into someone else’s comment.
Don’t worry, I wouldn’t stop to pick you up.
I am not the muddled one here.
The points are root and basic – a place where you have nothing of substance.
You attempt to proclaim dangerous policies without awareness nor car about any basics – and thus risk wrecking society.
You demanded the basis of my arguments – and we begin at those basics.
But even here you are confused and muddled.
You have no argument.
You never have an argument.
Your ideas are irrational and confused.
You do not even have a coherent understanding of basic concepts like “value” or “action”.
Then you believe you have the “right” answers to problems in society.
Even here, you are irrational and incoherent.
Here you are, claiming people are “far more” – yet it is you who wishes to steal from them, and force them by violence to surrender their property and wealth for your pleasures
I am stating that you should leave them alone to find their own happiness – and to you, it is I who does not understand people.
Your ignorance is immutable, but it is true I still try.
I agree. What you say here is nonsense for again I have never said such a thing
I do not know what is wrong with your brain, but you do not have good comprehension abilities.
But lots new ground is uncovered, because by your comments (and total lack of any argument) it is obvious you have never thought of theses things in the detail necessary for you to actually produce a coherent idea.
Perhaps, but that the is the nature of Truth, Mark.
You see, it takes no brain to spew irrational nonsense as you and JC amply demonstrate. You do not have to “prove” irrational muck, because it is irrational. Thus, the irrational 3-second sound bites that you think is an argument.
So the irrational muck can be short – and since it is devoid of reason, it does not need to explain!
The Poor need Government Money.
Any time someone asks a question, you simply refer back to the same statement. You can’t prove it – because it is irrational – but because it is irrational, there is nothing to prove!
But the Truth does not have this.
The Truth is discovered by reason and it takes work, study, reading and lots of thinking to reason.
People demand “how did you get the answer of Truth”? They cannot accept irrational arguments and thus, the volumes -from basic principles to the complex understanding, must be laid out in an orderly, logical and reasoned way.
But you are the common man, Mark.
You see the pages and pages of proof from the very basic premise in the minute detail – with chapters upon chapters proving each and every small step towards the Universal Truth, and you say “Eeckkk!” and dare never read them.
But your ignorance does not stop you proclaiming policies derived from that ignorance.
And, frankly, you probably will be successful in enforcing these policies of ignorance, because there are a lot more people like you then me, and we all only get one vote – no matter how brilliant or stupid you are.
But the Truth is the Truth, no matter the vote on it.
LikeLike
Mark,
I thought I saw you in this video 😉
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23Nt5XumaU
LikeLike