[Severus]

Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"A human values the air it breathes because it expects that it will help him or her survive."-Severus "So uh Severus, what sort of value do you reckon air has then? This value you recognize but which is impossible to quantify? Some folks might call that intrinsic value."-Clueless And you simply pretend as though it never happened. You cannot at once hold firm to the idea that intrinsic value does not exist and simultaneously recognize the existence of value within a resource even though there's no need to quantify it. Which is it Severus? Does the earth have an atmosphere that contains utility to humans which is intrinsic or doesn't it?

Air does not have value by itself. In order to have objective, inherent, intrinsic (whatever you want to call it), value, it must have it by itself. Air is valued subjectively by man because he believes it will help attain the end of survival. I don't even have to resort to using the suicide argument to demonstrate that this is a subjective value . . . for the sake of argument, let's assume that everybody wants to survive. In accordance with this end, people subjectively value air . . . the fact that everybody wants to survive and values air in this way does not strip the valuation of its subjectivity, since only egos (i.e. individuals) can value things. There is NOTHING apart from the individual's subjective valuation that gives anything value.

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Your own inability to comprehend the logical connections within my argument is not evidence of non-existence. If there are contradictions point them out, as I have done with you. You cannot simply "declare" my position devoid of logic.

You know I could simply say the same to you, right? Namely, that your own inability to comprehend the logical connections within my argument is not evidence of nonexistence. I have addressed your arguments and refuted them, showing all sorts of contradictions in your reasoning . . . on the other hand, when you respond to me it's as if you have never even read my posts, since they clearly go right over your head. The strawman arguments you construct, though false, amazingly suffer no harm from your attacks on them.

Anyway, if this thread has devolved to bickering, I believe I'll leave you to your own ends. Adios.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As I've also tried to indicate, promotion of the idea that philosophy is a necessary inclusion is merely an effort to reinforce the cloak of legitimacy afforded by subjectivity to a very flawed system. It is not by accident that this is the indoctrination process.

Please explain the mechanism that will provide a human or even a robot possessing no subjectivity.

[Severus]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So you are under the illusion that economics and philosophy can be separated. That explains a lot. Economics is completely comprised of the actions of individuals, therefore it cannot be divorced from psychology/philosophy.

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No. I am operating with the assumption that in order to facilitate a more functional human system they must be separated.

Clueless, here is an example of how you have no grasp of logic whatsoever. Do you see the contradiction here? In order to say that economics and philosophy must be separated, you have to assume that they can be separated.

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As I've tried to indicate previously, this isn't an exercise in philosophy for me, it's purely pragmatic.

In order for this to make sense, you would first have to establish that philosophy is not pragmatic.

[Clueless]

Do you people read?

"There is no need to understand or agree on subjective valuations. What is important to understand is that there are predictable differences between what I call intrinsic values and market values.
Both measures may be subjective but intrinsic value is far less volatile than market value."

You seem to think that you're making points, when the reality is that these things were addressed in the very first post. I've added bold to assist with reading comprehension.

---------- Post added 02-17-2012 at 03:31 PM ----------

OK. I see now that I'm dealing with people who argue for arguments sake, rather than to determine best fit solutions. That has never been my game. Good luck gentlemen.

I wish you both the best in your future endeavors. (That is genuine)

[INTelliJent]

Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Do you people read? "There is no need to understand or agree on subjective valuations. What is important to understand is that there are predictable differences between what I call intrinsic values and market values. Both measures may be subjective but intrinsic value is far less volatile than market value." You seem to think that you're making points, when the reality is that these things were addressed in the very first post. I've added bold to assist with reading comprehension.

You have created a new category backed by nothing but a ridiculous assertion than economics can be divorced from the human element.

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You have created a new category backed by nothing but a ridiculous assertion than economics can be divorced from the human element.

You've won, now scurry along.

[INTelliJent]

Let's assume this new category of "intrinsic value" exists, using oxygen as an example. How is this in anyway relevant to economics? What is the intrinsic value? How is it determined?

I foresee a lot of "handwaving" incoming.

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Let's assume this new category of "intrinsic value" exists, using oxygen as an example. How is this in anyway relevant to economics? What is the intrinsic value? How is it determined? I foresee a lot of "handwaving" incoming.

If that's of genuine concern to you, re-read the entirety of what I've posted thus far with greater effort directed toward understanding as opposed to arguing.

Regards.

---------- Post added 02-17-2012 at 03:42 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Severus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Air does not have value by itself. In order to have objective, inherent, intrinsic (whatever you want to call it), value, it must have it by itself. Air is valued subjectively by man because he believes it will help attain the end of survival. I don't even have to resort to using the suicide argument to demonstrate that this is a subjective value . . . for the sake of argument, let's assume that everybody wants to survive. In accordance with this end, people subjectively value air . . . the fact that everybody wants to survive and values air in this way does not strip the valuation of its subjectivity, since only egos (i.e. individuals) can value things. There is NOTHING apart from the individual's subjective valuation that gives anything value.

Point already made in my original post:

"Natural resources and property have no value outside the context of human existence."


More evidence to support the conclusion I've already drawn, which is that you either do not read, or are incapable of comprehending that which you do read.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If that's of genuine concern to you, re-read the entirety of what I've posted thus far with greater effort directed toward understanding as opposed to arguing. Regards.

My reading comprehension is excellent. If you had provided a cogent, rational argument, I would have recognized it. You admitted to divorcing your considerations on economics, FOUNDING them, exclusive from the human element. This is absurd. Economics, like everything else, does not exist in a vacuum.

You are making the same mistake mainstream economists make, and we see how that is going.

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My reading comprehension is excellent. If you had provided a cogent, rational argument, I would have recognized it. You admitted to divorcing your considerations on economics, FOUNDING them, exclusive from the human element. This is absurd. Economics, like everything else, does not exist in a vacuum. You are making the same mistake mainstream economists make, and we see how that is going.

I'll take your word for it.

[Severus]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Point already made in my original post: "Natural resources and property have no value outside the context of human existence." More evidence to support the conclusion I've already drawn, which is that you either do not read, or are incapable of comprehending that which you do read.

You seem to think that if you've already said something, then it must by definition fit logically into the complex of your statements. I know you already said: "Natural resources and property have no value outside the context of human existence." I agree with that, but that is completely at odds with your assertion that something called intrinsic, or objective, value exists. Outside of human existence, an apple is still an apple . . . if it has intrinsic value, then why does it have no intrinsic value outside the context of human existence? In saying that things have no value outside the context of human existence, you make value contingent on the subjective valuations of humans.

[INTelliJent]

Originally Posted by Severus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You seem to think that if you've already said something, then it must by definition fit logically into the complex of your statements. I know you already said: "Natural resources and property have no value outside the context of human existence." I agree with that, but that is completely at odds with your assertion that something called intrinsic, or objective, value exists. Outside of human existence, an apple is still an apple . . . if it has intrinsic value, then why does it have no intrinsic value outside the context of human existence? In saying that things have no value outside the context of human existence, you make value contingent on the subjective valuations of humans.

This has already been pointed out to him. He doesn't get it.

[Clueless]

Originally Posted by Severus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You seem to think that if you've already said something, then it must by definition fit logically into the complex of your statements. I know you already said: "Natural resources and property have no value outside the context of human existence." I agree with that, but that is completely at odds with your assertion that something called intrinsic, or objective, value exists. Outside of human existence, an apple is still an apple . . . if it has intrinsic value, then why does it have no intrinsic value outside the context of human existence? In saying that things have no value outside the context of human existence, you make value contingent on the subjective valuations of humans.

It should also be understood that this whole conversation is unecessary outside the context of human existence, but it seems I must state this anyway.

I go on to point out then (within the context of human existence) that there are actually two types of value (both subjective).

The difference is that one type is strictly a function of the artificial quantification provided by a market structure and the other is often completely unquantified but representative of relative utility in addressing human need. For rational prioritization to occur (prioritization most conducive to human survival and progress) objective comparison is necessary to determine intrinsic value hierarchy.

The fact is that a binary objective comparison is the very first step in the market process. Do I need to participate in the market to secure survival? The answer for more and more humans in a global economic system accompanied as it is by conventions of private ownership of property, is yes.

This being the case, and because human effort is the most valuable resource available to secure the survival and progress of the species itself requires that the effort be more accurately appraised compared to what can be provided in a moneyed, market system based on the circular reasoning of marginal utility.

I am done. If you can't understand these very practical ideas it's not my problem.

[Traverser]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I go on to point out then (within the context of human existence) that there are actually two types of value (both subjective). The difference is that one type is strictly a function of the artificial quantification provided by a market structure

Translation: They've both subjective, and one results in a price system. Okay, I think I can follow with this...

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	and the other is often completely unquantified but representative of relative utility in addressing human need.

Translation: The other is useful for our survival, but it is either not appreciated or even noticed. "Subjective" my arse!

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	For rational prioritization to occur (prioritization most conducive to human survival and progress) objective comparison is necessary to determine intrinsic value hierarchy.

I can understand where you're coming from as far as "objective comparison" is concerned. But you must understand; objective observations can only be derived by comparing scarce materials to other scarce materials . Just as how I can't measure how many ideas can fit inside a beer bottle, so can't I measure how many beer bottles an idea can contain. Likewise, neither can I claim that one idea is either larger or smaller than another. This is why, as Severus and others have pointed out, value is always ordinal, not cardinal.

So even if this magical "intrinsic value" actually existed, it is actually impossible for you, or anyone, to measure with any degree of accuracy. Which explains why, up to this point, you haven't given us any actual method to determine it! It may as well be a phantom, which begs the question: if it's so necessary for us to determine in order to survive as a species, yet impossible to do so, then how the hell did we survive in the first place? Blind luck? Animal Spirits?

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The fact is that a binary objective comparison is the very first step in the market process. Do I need to participate in the market to secure survival? The answer for more and more humans in a global economic system accompanied as it is by conventions of private ownership of property, is yes.

Pointing out that people currently survive in a global economy is not evidence of your "instrinsic value" hypothesis. It doesn't exist.

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This being the case, and because human effort is the most valuable resource available to secure the survival and progress of the species itself requires that the effort be more accurately appraised compared to what can be provided in a moneyed, market system.

Once again, there's no method presented, because it's impossible outside of a market system. I can easily "appraise" that my labor has the potential to yield a cure for cancer, however ludicrous or true it may be, but that means diddly squat if the whole of humanity doesn't value cancer treatments at all, or if I never live up to that expectation and miserably fall short.

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	based on the circular reasoning of marginal utility.

This is going to be fun. By all means, explain.

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I am done. If you can't understand these very practical ideas it's not my problem.

Well if you're not interested in learning and critical-thinking, then just say so.

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Once again, there's no method presented, because it's impossible outside of a market system. I can easily "appraise" that my labor has the potential to yield a cure for cancer, however ludicrous or true it may be, but that means diddly squat if the whole of humanity doesn't value cancer treatments at all, or if I never live up to that expectation and miserably fall short.

You're correct, it is impossible. It is also unnecessary as the following quotes from the OP make clear:
"There is no need to understand or agree on subjective valuations." and "It is wholly unnecessary to discuss any assignment of subjective value quantification."

	Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is going to be fun. By all means, explain.

This has already been explained in previous exchange with Severus:

You cannot get past this simple problem: The value of labor is to be derived from the marginal utility of the product which is to be assigned valuation by the sellers of labor. Are you blind to that bit of circularity? That is to say; We'll decide what to pay you when we see your product and find out what you're going to pay us for it.

That's how it works in reality. These things don't take place in a vacuum or in isolation with only a dozen people involved and a very controlled environment. This is a rather large collective dynamic.

It comes down to humans making choices based upon the marginal utility of the money they possess, the sum of which was decided by the value of the products they produced which was decided by the limited money they possessed. It's utter nonsense.

	Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well if you're not interested in learning and critical-thinking, then just say so.

The same could be said by me about any of you. Not one of you has made a serious effort to understand anything I've posted. You've reacted with typical human emotion based on an assumption that nothing some anonymous person could post here would possibly contain more validity than already widely held concepts. Therefore you've tried to shoehorn everything I've posted into this or that previous category and discredit with this or that previously successful critique. The truth, however is that none have actually made an effort to understand what I may have offered that's provides distinction. That's why I keep having to point back to my own OP, you didn't try to understand it. You made assumptions.
Not any of the debate has focused on actually, seriously dissecting the theory I've put forth, it's all been debate based upon false assumptions of what I put forth.

---------- Post added 02-17-2012 at 06:10 PM ----------

The specific reason I state that both are subjective is because any numerical valuation is inherently subjective and requires comparison of dissimilar stocks in measuring one against the other to express the value of one in terms of the other.

However, for the purposes of rational allocation to promote collective benefit, it is possible to make objective comparisons for the purpose of determining a scale of intrinsic values relative to human utililty. As in, lets make sure we can all eat before we go about digging for diamonds. In the overall scheme of things, people can't subsist by eating diamonds.

[INTelliJent]

I believe that land use/occupancy addresses the concern you seem to have. The current problem is being in debt upon birth, which has nothing to do with the "Free market".

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I believe that land use/occupancy addresses the concern you seem to have. The current problem is being in debt upon birth, which has nothing to do with the "Free market".

If you had an accurate understanding of what it is I've been saying you'd know I disagree.

[titi monkey]

The dirty little secret of laissez-faire economics is that there will be losers: elderly or infirm people not able to produce, healthy individuals not able to move (for whatever reason) to wherever the demand for labor currently exists, dependent children unable to fend for themselves, and so on.

These are side-issues that have no place in an economic system. It is the duty of these people to rely on the goodwill of friends and family, or crawl into a hole and die. It's the only way the system can function as designed.

The most good for the most people leaves nothing for those unable to participate. It's entirely up to the individual winners whether they choose to divert a portion of their wealth towards the support of others. It is neither the role of government, nor the business of government to involve itself in the survival or well-being of individuals.

But realistically, losers don't just go away. They hang around and get more and more angry with a broken system until they eventually revolt.

Clueless has let it slip that he cares about the losers. Whether these people have a right to the fulfillment of basic needs, or whether it's a matter of efficiency isn't exactly clear.

Clueless' argument as I read it assumes that individuals will find a way to satisfy their basic needs -- by hook or by crook -- and that it's in a government's best interest to enforce payments to these people, in the form of minimum wages, based on some formula that determines what is reasonable for that particular society, to keep them from becoming disruptive; as it's cheaper than maintaining a domestic army and more efficient than giving them handouts.

While others are arguing the mechanics of economics, I think Clueless is saying there are meta-structures of interconnectedness involved that shouldn't be ignored. I'm not saying I completely agree or completely disagree, but I think on some level the argument has merit.

Admittedly, the presentation needs some work. For instance, how will the formula for minimum wage be determined, will it vary from city to city, state to state? What about those unable to work, will they still receive unearned government benefits?

And then there's the issue of rational allocation of resources. Because people are prone to wild speculations and bouts of panic, a purely free-market economy will experience frequent booms and busts -- some potentially devastating. The answer, he says, is some force that recognizes irrational allocation (because the supply of it has already outstripped any possible demand that could exist) and pulls the plug on it before it gets out of hand. However, no description is made as to what this rational mechanism will look like or who will operate it.

So to Clueless I say, you may be on to something, but as it stands from my understanding (or misunderstanding), it's far from a completed theory. Perhaps the failure is in the unfortunate choice of terms that already have specific meanings, or maybe it's the lack of certain details that would clarify the process.

[INTelliJent]

Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The dirty little secret of laissez-faire economics is that there will be losers: elderly or infirm people not able to produce, healthy individuals not able to move (for whatever reason) to wherever the demand for labor currently exists, dependent children unable to fend for themselves, and so on. These are side-issues that have no place in an economic system. It is the duty of these people to rely on the goodwill of friends and family, or crawl into a hole and die. It's the only way the system can function as designed. The most good for the most people leaves nothing for those unable to participate. It's entirely up to the individual winners whether they choose to divert a portion of their wealth towards the support of others. It is neither the role of government, nor the business of government to involve itself in the survival or well-being of individuals. But realistically, losers don't just go away. They hang around and get more and more angry with a broken system until they eventually revolt. Clueless has let it slip that he cares about the losers. Whether these people have a right to the fulfillment of basic needs, or whether it's a matter of efficiency isn't exactly clear. Clueless' argument as I read it assumes that individuals will find a way to satisfy their basic needs -- by hook or by crook -- and that it's in a government's best interest to enforce payments to these people, in the form of minimum wages, based on some formula that determines what is reasonable for that particular society, to keep them from becoming disruptive; as it's cheaper than maintaining a domestic army and more efficient than giving them handouts. While others are arguing the mechanics of economics, I think Clueless is saying there are meta-structures of interconnectedness involved that shouldn't be ignored. I'm not saying I completely agree or completely disagree, but I think on some level the argument has merit. Admittedly, the presentation needs some work. For instance, how will the formula for minimum wage be determined, will it vary from city to city, state to state? What about those unable to work, will they still receive unearned government benefits? And then there's the issue of rational allocation of resources. Because people are prone to wild speculations and bouts of panic, a purely free-market economy will experience frequent booms and busts -- some potentially devastating. The answer, he says, is some force that recognizes irrational allocation (because the supply of it has already outstripped any possible demand that could exist) and pulls the plug on it before it gets out of hand. However, no description is made as to what this rational mechanism will look like or who will operate it. So to Clueless I say, you may be on to something, but as it stands from my understanding (or misunderstanding), it's far from a completed theory. Perhaps the failure is in the unfortunate choice of terms that already have specific meanings, or maybe it's the lack of certain details that would clarify the process.

Land use/occupancy does address this. When land is not monopolized, people are not forced to participate against their will in various market scenarios for survival. They only need participate for items they cannot personally produce that they want. In other words, luxuries.

The elderly who are unable to provide for themselves at some point should have savings, family, or friends. If they have been such poorly functioning people as to have neither family, nor savings, nor friends who do, and society in general is not inclined to overlook these shortcomings voluntarily, I don't see the great problem here. Ends never justify means. People should not have ready access to safety nets based on immoral means. Invalids generally fall in the same boat, as do children, excluding the savings aspect. If we are to be motivated by fear of an "elderly/child/invalid" uprising to establish thuggery through proxy by the state, I must protest on both logical and ethical grounds.

Now the state, or in other words, violence, cannot solve problems of want over the long term. It hasn't, it doesn't. It must be up to the moral improvement of the individual. If we allow the state to steal to re-appropriate, why not merely let needing individuals commit theft themselves at will with impunity? This would at least cut out the middleman.

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by titi monkey To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So to Clueless I say, you may be on to something, but as it stands from my understanding (or misunderstanding), it's far from a completed theory. Perhaps the failure is in the unfortunate choice of terms that already have specific meanings, or maybe it's the lack of certain details that would clarify the process.

While having indicated several times that I've no formal training in economics (nor philosophy, nor any other formal study), I am familiar with english and therefore use terms based on the standard dictionary definition, as opposed to specialized definitions that may exist within a formal field of study.

I really think the biggest source of friction is that my efforts have been directed at practical problem solving and most here seem incapable of having non-academic discussion. I'm near certain that's the situation between Severus and I.

[titi monkey]

Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Land use/occupancy does address this. When land is not monopolized, people are not forced to participate against their will in various market scenarios for survival. They only need participate for items they cannot personally produce that they want. In other words, luxuries. The elderly who are unable to provide for themselves at some point should have savings, family, or friends. If they have been such poorly functioning people as to have neither family, nor savings, nor friends who do, and society in general is not inclined to overlook these shortcomings voluntarily, I don't see the great problem here. Ends never justify means. People should not have ready access to safety nets based on immoral means. Invalids generally fall in the same boat, as do children, excluding the savings aspect. If we are to be motivated by fear of an "elderly/child/invalid" uprising to establish thuggery through proxy by the state, I must protest on both logical and ethical grounds.

Don't forget to add-in the healthy individuals not able to move to where the demand for labor currently exists.

	Now the state, or in other words, violence, cannot solve problems of want over the long term. It hasn't, it doesn't. It must be up to the moral improvement of the individual. If we allow the state to steal to re-appropriate, why not merely let needing individuals commit theft themselves at will with impunity? This would at least cut out the middleman.

Yes, that really is the question that begs to be answered.

[Traverser]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This has already been explained in previous exchange with Severus: You cannot get past this simple problem: The value of labor is to be derived from the marginal utility of the product which is to be assigned valuation by the sellers of labor.

Uh, no, Clueless. Sellers of labor do not determine marginal utility. If I go to any retail outlet, the fact that a pair of shoes may involve 10 or 100 hands in its production rarely factors into my valuations of its usefulness (aka utility). And if they do, it's only because I, as a thinking individual, attribute some collector's value in a product's historical production; not because the production itself programmed me to value it that way.

So a seller of labor can ask for any price up to the moon and beyond; doesn't change the fact that all products and services are produced to satisfy consumers in order to earn profits against competitors. Neither does it guarantee that their asking prices will be accepted.

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Are you blind to that bit of circularity? That is to say; We'll decide what to pay you when we see your product and find out what you're going to pay us for it.

"pay us"...for buying the product?

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's how it works in reality. These things don't take place in a vacuum or in isolation with only a dozen people involved and a very controlled environment. This is a rather large collective dynamic.

Your explanations are dynamic all right...

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It comes down to humans making choices based upon the marginal utility of the money they possess, the sum of which was decided by the value of the products they produced which was decided by the limited money they possessed. It's utter nonsense.

It's "utter nonsense" because you overlook how money is a facilitator of exchange. Few people covet money for its own sake, but in order to acquire goods and services that would normally be difficult to buy without it. It may change hands, but in the end it's not money that's doing the determining of marginal utility; just individuals faced with a world of scarcity.

Let me make it a little easier for you to understand. Money, in essense, is a good so marketable that it winds up being used as a medium of transactions. Hence, anything can become money, but certain qualities make certain monies more marketable than others, such as durability, divisibility, rarity, fungibility, etc. Gold, although more limited in industrial applications than other materials, still stands as the preferred money of choice for thousands of years. This could always change, of course, but only if people find other products more marketable than gold. So what you think is "circular reasoning", is actually just a mutual discovery of a universal unit of account. It helps communicate precious information to both consumers and entrepreneurs on the state of the market, and in more ways than I can describe here in this post.

Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The same could be said by me about any of you. Not one of you has made a serious effort to understand anything I've posted. You've reacted with typical human emotion based on an assumption that nothing some anonymous person could post here would possibly contain more validity than already widely held concepts. Therefore you've tried to shoehorn everything I've posted into this or that previous category and discredit with this or that previously successful critique.

Complete fabrication, except for the part about me being emotional. I'm not a robot, after all.

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The truth, however is that none have actually made an effort to understand what I may have offered that's provides distinction. That's why I keep having to point back to my own OP, you didn't try to understand it. You made assumptions.

I can relate to your frustration of people failing to understand my points. Miscommunication happens, much of which is my own fault, and yours. In this case, however, I don't think it's miscommunication that's the problem. You can accuse us all you want of refusing to understand, as if agreement alone is proof, but we do expect that you address the points we've made, just as how we've addressed yours.

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not any of the debate has focused on actually, seriously dissecting the theory I've put forth, it's all been debate based upon false assumptions of what I put forth.

Well, I'll let the readers decide if any of us was "seriously dissecting the theory", although I wish you would point out those false assumptions, and actually prove they're false.

For the record, I was dressed up as a clown while typing everything here; I guess that means I wasn't being serious all this time.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The specific reason I state that both are subjective is because any numerical valuation is inherently subjective and requires comparison of dissimilar stocks in measuring one against the other to express the value of one in terms of the other. However, for the purposes of rational allocation to promote collective benefit, it is possible to make objective comparisons for the purpose of determining a scale of intrinsic values relative to human utililty. As in, lets make sure we can all eat before we go about digging for diamonds. In the overall scheme of things, people can't subsist by eating diamonds.

Well gee, yeah. No one can enjoy diamonds when they're dead! That's a given. But when you argue that "intrinsic values" (which don't exist, but nevermind that) can be objectively measured...we kinda would like to know exactly how. And when you then say this, regarding its measurement:

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You're correct, it is impossible. It is also unnecessary as the following quotes from the OP make clear: "There is no need to understand or agree on subjective valuations." and "It is wholly unnecessary to discuss any assignment of subjective value quantification."

Then what's the point of you arguing that our survival is dependant on determing intrinsic value, if it's impossible? What's the point of understanding ANYTHING you bring forth on the topic, since you already explained that understanding, let alone discussion, is needless?

[Clueless]

Traverser; Whom do you think the consumers are?

---------- Post added 02-18-2012 at 12:47 AM ----------

When you figure that part out, tell me where they get their money.

---------- Post added 02-18-2012 at 12:49 AM ----------

Then tell me how they decide what they'd like in exchange for the first divisible portion of their money?

---------- Post added 02-18-2012 at 12:50 AM ----------

Then remind me again how it was that these consumers wages were determined?

---------- Post added 02-18-2012 at 01:14 AM ----------

Okay, okay, okay! I'll give you a hint. Drumroll..... The vast majority of consumers are wage earners!!!!! Isn't that incredible?

They're both!!!!!!!


Inconceivable? Maybe. But the way it works is thusly;

Mises tells us how folks go about making subjective valuations. They do this in today's market economies with a "facilitator of exchange", I believe those were your words.
They come to possess this because it has been exchanged for their productive efforts.
Now we know because Mises tells us, that the determination of what their efforts is worth is made in the marketplace based on the consumer's subjective evaluation.


So now we know that all we have to do to earn more money.........is spend more money.

So next time you go to buy a pair of shoes, pay double the asking price. Recommend to the proprietor that he do the same in all his dealings. Let's get everyone to "pay it forward", so to speak, and we can all have raises!!!!!!


Doesn't this sound like a brilliant idea?

[Traverser]

Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Traverser; Whom do you think the consumers are? ---------- Post added 02-18-2012 at 12:47 AM ---------- When you figure that part out, tell me where they get their money. ---------- Post added 02-18-2012 at 12:49 AM ---------- Then tell me how they decide what they'd like in exchange for the first divisible portion of their money? ---------- Post added 02-18-2012 at 12:50 AM ---------- Then remind me again how it was that these consumers wages were determined? ---------- Post added 02-18-2012 at 01:14 AM ---------- Okay, okay, okay! I'll give you a hint. Drumroll..... The vast majority of consumers are wage earners!!!!! Isn't that incredible? They're both!!!!!!! Inconceivable? Maybe. But the way it works is thusly;

Inconceivable? That we have the capacity to consume and produce? I guess it inconceivable to you, but oh well. To each his own.

Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Mises tells us how folks go about making subjective valuations. They do this in today's market economies with a "facilitator of exchange", I believe those were your words. They come to possess this because it has been exchanged for their productive efforts. Now we know because Mises tells us, that the determination of what their efforts is worth is made in the marketplace based on the consumer's subjective evaluation. So now we know that all we have to do to earn more money.........is spend more money. So next time you go to buy a pair of shoes, pay double the asking price. Recommend to the proprietor that he do the same in all his dealings. Let's get everyone to "pay it forward", so to speak, and we can all have raises!!!!!! Doesn't this sound like a brilliant idea?

Sounds to me that Mises was advocating for one to produce more competiively, in order to earn more money, by pointing out that consumers reward producers...with money. Moreoever, if everyone doubled their bidding prices for everything they desired, nothing would change because the money pool remains the same. I could bid $50 instead of $25 for same pair of shoes that you mention, but I won't, because that's $25 less I can spend for other things I want.

Here's a better idea. Pick up a book by Mises for beginners, and read it. Tell us what you think.

[Clueless]

Originally Posted by Traverser To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Inconceivable? That we have the capacity to consume and produce? I guess it inconceivable to you, but oh well. To each his own. Sounds to me that Mises was advocating for one to produce more competiively, in order to earn more money, by pointing out that consumers reward producers...with money. Moreoever, if everyone doubled their bidding prices for everything they desired, nothing would change because the money pool remains the same. I could bid $50 instead of $25 for same pair of shoes that you mention, but I won't, because that's $25 less I can spend for other things I want. Here's a better idea. Pick up a book by Mises for beginners, and read it. Tell us what you think.

I already have in every way possible. You aren't capable of grasping it.

---------- Post added 02-18-2012 at 01:39 AM ----------

Evidently this concept is much more difficult than I would have supposed at first blush.

---------- Post added 02-18-2012 at 01:46 AM ----------

So wages are determined by goods purchased. Check.
Goods purchased are determined by the subjectivity of consumers. Check.
The amount of money available in the pockets of consumers is determined by wages. Check.

And the consumers and wage earners are the same group. Check.


Okie Dokie. Sounds reasonable enough to me.

---------- Post added 02-18-2012 at 01:47 AM ----------

Lets try it for a little while and just see how it all works out!!!!!