Source
r/CapitalismVSocialism•
Hhtura

Anti-LTV'ers who say economic value is subjective, can you answer some questions?

Not just the questions I'm about to write here, in the submission field, but in the comments, too.

Economic value is subjective. I'm the subject. That means the economic value of things is dependent upon me. I don't like soda. Does that mean I can go into a store and take their soda? I value it at zero, so that's how much I'll give them in return. It has no value, as we've established, so why would anybody stop me from taking it? Surely the store should want me to take it, so they can put something valuable in that space instead, right? I should be charging them, as like, a waste removal service. Why or why not?

Posted Apr 4, 2018, 1:40 AM UTC

5174
green_meklargeolibertarian•

If you value the soda at zero, what motivates you to walk into a store and steal some?

9
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

Hmm. Maybe I grab some just to see if they'll let me?

Or, let's say I just want the bottles they're kept in, so I offer to pay them the price of the bottle, minus of course the inconvenience of having to drain the unwanted soda out of them. Would that be a better question for you?

The point, in any case, is that I'm taking them, but I don't value them as highly as the store wants me to.

2
mattsahMarxist-Capitalist (I won the lottery)•

How much you or the store values it is irrelevant. The soda is not being produced by the producer for their use. They only value it insofar as it makes them a higher rate of profit given their existing capital investment and new capital investment -- otherwise, they would invest their money elsewhere. All the talk about subjective value is a smokescreen of an idealized economy where the seller values they good they produce in terms of its utility -- but they don't. Its utility is profit, therefore, what regulates its price in a competitive market is cost of production + some rate of profit.

Of course, those things will vary based on other things too, but the notion that the starting point is the individual store owners valuation of all the goods in their store is absurd.

4
Burner24•

In a very rudimentary sense the store owners individual evaluations absolutely are a starting point. If business is doing well they can charge msrp all day, but it’s very realistic that if business is doing poorly the owner could try to liquidate and begin selling the same goods he use to charge msrp on for much less based on need for money. People don’t pay the price the store owner asks for because of what the store owner paid for the goods, it’s because they value the good more than the money they give up or else they would not exchange for the good.

1
alienated_proleAbolish the Spectacle•

You missed the point. His point was that the business owners don't value the use-values of the goods they're exchanging, they're only interested in its exchange value. Exchange value of the goods is the only reason they're in business. ie if a clothing store sells coats, its not because the utility of the coats are of interest to the owner. When the owner looks at his coats, he doesn't see coats at all, he only sees exchange-value. Subjectivism is a dead end because it denies the existence of exchange value, and says that exchange is nothing but a subjective comparison of two things of utility.

8
mattsahMarxist-Capitalist (I won the lottery)•

No, because the proposal for subjective valuation is one of marginal utility -- the store owners utility is only ever that which is socially regulated (profitability) -- so it's not subjective.

3
green_meklargeolibertarian•

Or, let's say I just want the bottles they're kept in, so I offer to pay them the price of the bottle, minus of course the inconvenience of having to drain the unwanted soda out of them. Would that be a better question for you?

They're already offering you the price of the bottle, plus the inconvenience of having to fill it with soda. So that seems fair.

1
StefanMajonezMarket Anarchist •

I've read some of your replies in this thread, and I have a question for you.

Why do you believe that things have an intrinsic value?

The soda has value to you, and it has value to the store owner, and to a random person across the street.

What you are doing is looking only at your subjective value and effectively declaring that it's the soda's objective value.

7
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

Why do you believe that things have an intrinsic value?

I'm not sure what 'intrinsic' means in this context. Do you mean, like, the color of the item, or its qualities such as hardness or smoothness?

What you are doing is looking only at your subjective value

Yes, because I was told that value is purely subjective. That's what that means, right?

This explanation (supposing it actually 'explains' something or other) was given to me as an alternative to the theory that prices tend to be the cost of labor plus the expected rate of profit from investment, on average. Apparently that can't be right, because value is just, well, subjective.

But judging by some of these replies, value doesn't sound like it's really all that subjective after all. No matter how subjectively I value something, it seems as though there's still a bunch of other people in society who determine how much I have to pay. Can you help me understand why that is?

3
StefanMajonezMarket Anarchist •

Why do you believe that things have an intrinsic value?

I'm not sure what 'intrinsic' means in this context. Do you mean, like, the color of the item, or its qualities such as hardness or smoothness?

Yeah. I've met people that think an item has intrinsic value. I still don't quite understand what they meant.

What you are doing is looking only at your subjective value

Yes, because I was told that value is purely subjective. That's what that means, right?

No.

Subjective means that it's 'based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions' - notice the definition I Googled doesn't have '/u/Hhtura' anywhere on it. The (intrinsic) value (that IMO doesn't exist) of the item isn't defined by you, value to you is.

The shop owner assigns the soda value to him as well. Both value to you and value to the shop owner are IMO both legitimate.

But judging by some of these replies, value doesn't sound like it's really all that subjective after all.

It is though. If there's a thing which has no value to you, it has no value to you. Doesn't mean it doesn't have value to others.

No matter how subjectively I value something, it seems as though there's still a bunch of other people in society who determine how much I have to pay.

I think you're getting outside the scope of a theory of value here. A theory of value isn't morality or law; it just tells you the value of stuff. If you live in a society with private property, you can't take the soda. If you live in a society with no private property, you can take it.

3
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

The shop owner assigns the soda value to him as well.

How much does the shop owner value the soda, and why? How much a consumer like me values it depends on how much we want to drink it, or use it in some other way. What determines how much a store values it?

1
Holophonist•

In the case of somebody who literally only wants something because they want to sell it (which might not ever really exist in reality), it's based on their perception of what they can charge for it. Why? Because they subjectively value money.

Do you think there is something magical about wanting something because it tastes good, vs wanting something because it can be sold?

1
NoShit_94Somalian Warlord•

It seems like you're confusing value with price. Prices are determined by supply and demand, which in turn are affected by the people's subjective preferences.

2
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

Prices are determined by supply and demand

Strange, I thought price was determined subjectively.

1
NoShit_94Somalian Warlord•

Demand is subjective, so...

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
MrSabuhudoRothbardian•

"Does that mean I can go into a store and take their soda?" Whether or not you are able to do so phsically doesn't depend on the value anyone places on the soda. Whether or not you are morally permitted to do so is a question outside of economics and economic value theory.

"so why would anyone stop me from taking it?" The store owner subjectively places a higher value on having the soda versus not having the soda, all other things being equal. (Your value judgment has nothing to do with his.) Since this is the case, he is willing to incur some cost in order to bring about the situation he values more highly. That's why he stops you.

The store owner fills his shelves based on his value judgements, not yours. The value, which the store owner places on any given product is most likely related to the price said product can fetch on the market. So, the store owner doesn't care that you have no use for soda, he cares about the price people who do like soda are willing to pay.

Does this answer your question?

6
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

The store owner subjectively places a higher value on having the soda versus not having the soda

I'm a bit confused here. Why does it matter that value is "subjective" if there's all these non-subjective factors, such as how people who aren't me value things, that affect my relationship to the things that I subjectively value?

Do you think it would be possible for us to understand the relationship between the subjective valuations that comprise the economy, in such a way that we might gain some kind of insight about how these valuations go on to inform what prices I eventually have to pay for things that I want?

0
ILikeBumblebees•

I'm a bit confused here. Why does it matter that value is "subjective" if there's all these non-subjective factors, such as how people who aren't me value things, that affect my relationship to the things that I subjectively value?

You seem to have mistaken "subjective" for "solipsistic". Other people exist in the world, too, and each of them is the "subject" with respect to their own values and actions.

Do you think it would be possible for us to understand the relationship between the subjective valuations that comprise the economy, in such a way that we might gain some kind of insight about how these valuations go on to inform what prices I eventually have to pay for things that I want?

Yes. The study of the inter-relationships between people's varying subjective evaluations of tradable goods (and the patterns of exchange that emerge therefrom) is known as "economics".

4
MrSabuhudoRothbardian•

The reason other people's subjective valuations may have an impact on your own valuations is the fact that other people's actions can influence how well you are able to achieve your own goals. (The value you place on your actions is derived from the value you place on the goals you may or may not achieve with the action.) As an example, your goal is to remove your feeling of hunger. You immediately think of two possiblities to achieve this goal:

First, you could go into the woods and eat berries, bugs and whatever edible stuff you can find. This is arduous, unpleasant and insecure.

Your second option is to open up a store, sell sodas, and buy food with the money you recieved from selling sodas. This option is more secure, though not completely, much more pleasant und much less arduous. Therefore you deem this option better suited to achieve your goal of getting food - you deem this action more valuable that to scavenge in the woods.

Note that your second option is only possible because there are other people who are willing to buy sodas and sell food. If this were not so, you would be completely unable to achieve your goal of getting food by selling sodas - since nobody is going to buy them. In this case, you would surely value scavenging in the woods higher than selling sodas, since selling sodas means certain death while scavenging means the possibility of survival.

"Do you think it would be possible for us to understand the relationship between the subjective valuations that comprise the economy, in such a way that we might gain some kind of insight about how these valuations go on to inform what prices I eventually have to pay for things that I want?"

Very much so, this is called price theory, or catallactics.

4
properal/r/GoldandBlack•

Do you think it would be possible for us to understand the relationship between the subjective valuations that comprise the economy, in such a way that we might gain some kind of insight about how these valuations go on to inform what prices I eventually have to pay for things that I want?

Price Theory (In Under Ten Minutes)

1
soskroodWarned you we tried Listen you did not Now Skrood we all will be•

Economic value is subjective.

Yes.

I'm the subject.

Correction - you are A subject, not 'the' subject.

That means the economic value of things is dependent upon me.

In part, yes.

Does that mean I can go into a store and take their soda? I value it at zero, so that's how much I'll give them in return.

No. You misunderstand what 'trade' is. 'Trade' is 2 'subjects' negotiating their respective values, in this case for the soda. Your 'value of zero' is only valid in the trade if the other subject (who owns it) ALSO values it at zero.

Property norms tell us who's subjective value takes precedence.

It has no value, as we've established, so why would anybody stop me from taking it?

It has no value TO YOU - one of the subjects. They would stop you because it does have value TO THEM, and the property norms tell us that their subjective evaluation takes precedence over yours.

Surely the store should want me to take it, so they can put something valuable in that space instead, right? I should be charging them, as like, a waste removal service. Why or why not?

All this hinges on the first error I pointed out - you are not 'the' subject, you are 'a' subject negotiating in a system that tells us who's subjective value takes precedence.

You can do better than this...

6
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

you are A subject, not 'the' subject.

Meaning there are other 'subjects' whose valuations determine what I have to pay?

They would stop you because it does have value TO THEM, and the property norms tell us that their subjective evaluation takes precedence over yours.

I see. Well, if it's their evaluation that's more important—and it sounds like you're probably correct about that, since they have the power to refuse to sell to me, and I can't force them to sell it to me, so ultimately if we fail to come to an agreement the soda is theirs—... can we examine why the store values the soda how they do?

--

You can do better than this

--

^(The problem is that when we describe something as 'subjective', that normally communicates that it's up to each person to decide something for themselves, like interpreting the beauty of a piece of artwork or something. But in the economy we don't really have anywhere near that much freedom, because there's millions of other 'subjects' upon whose valuations our actions end up being constrained by. It's correct to point out that the store's valuation of the soda is relevant too, not just my valuation of it, but a step beyond that is, why does the store value it that way? There's a lot of background information we could be trying to do something with that gets totally ignored when we just say "it's subjective, case closed." And since the so-called labor theory of value is not an attempt at denying the role of subjective valuations in the determination of prices, when you offer "it's subjective" as an alternative to that, it sounds like what you're supposing is that you can explain whatever it was the labor theory was meant to be explaining purely through your observation of subjectivity. Which seemingly turns out not to be the case. And to the final conclusion of this subjectivist outlook, we may observe, to the contrary, how the market price of this soda is objectively two dollars to me because there's nothing about my subjective valuation that will make the price on the shelf display something other than the price the company determined—in other words, we could perhaps say 'objectively, the valuations already offered by the rest of the economy has culminated in this given price point, and I can either choose, subjectively, to go along with it or not'—; in addition, even if all people changed their subjective valuation of soda, there is eventually going to be a price floor after which soda would not just keep getting cheaper to match our falling valuation, but instead simply stop being produced, because it couldn't be worth it to the producer anymore due to the cost of production exceeding revenue. But that sounds awfully LTV-ish, don't you think? But I'm not positive how to approach this topic yet, or at least I wasn't feeling it yesterday, so call this thread experimental.)

3
soskroodWarned you we tried Listen you did not Now Skrood we all will be•

can we examine why the store values the soda how they do?

Absolutely. Lets pick a random, but somewhat 'standard' price point of $1/ can.

Most stores would probably choose to sell at 98c/ can instead because the '98c' means something to them (things ending in 98 are at a normal sell price) and also there is the psychological effect of 98c vs 100 on most people. So we have already determined that 2c of their price is determined by store policy and sales maximization technique that have nothing to do with production itself or labor.

Then you have buying in bulk - buy 10 cans for $8.98 instead of $10.00. We have just shaved of a whole 1/10 of the price just for purchasing 10 at once. They don't even need to be in a single container - pull 10 singles and get your savings (my local grocer does this all the time with yoghurt). So 10% of the 'value' of the can is negotiable - right off the top.

Both of those decisions are purely 'subjective' as in 'there isn't a labor reason for the store to do that'.

We could continue though. Perhaps those particular cans are marked with a date, and that date is beyond some arbitrary range for soda freshness (or perhaps the store owner bought too many) - in either case, this date and the total quantity the store owner owns is higher than the store owner's subjective threshold - and so he prices at a discount. Now you can buy your 10 cans in bulk for $4.98 instead of $8.98 for the subjective reason of 'I want my shelf space back'.

we could perhaps say 'objectively, the valuations already offered by the rest of the economy has culminated in this given price point, and I can either choose, subjectively, to go along with it or not'—

The problem is that there is NO OBJECTIVE PRICE FOR THE PRODUCT - even from a given store as my example shows. What exists is objects at a given price right now in this moment, subjectively given a price tag by the seller.

It is, under normal circumstances, desirable for the store owner to sell his product so that it clears his costs. However, even that does not form an OBJECTIVE basis for a price, as there are plenty of subjective reasons why someone might sell below costs.

I think one of the issues with the LTV is that it makes claims about the market as a whole. It asserts that all the prices all across all the markets are reducible to labor inputs (roughly speaking). Fine. The problem though is that when you go to any of the end points where products are sold to people, there is zero evidence of this. You can't look at any price for any product and know anything about the labor that went into it.

Let me put it in terms of ballistics (physics). Let's say you happen upon a fresh explosion. You see the hole in the ground, maybe some shrapnel, etc. Using math, you can work out the size of the bullet, the trajectory from where it came, how much kinetic energy it had on impact - all kinds of useful stuff. You learn about the source by examining the target.

This is not the case with price - especially with the additional labor reduction claims of the ltv. You cannot look at any price and learn anything about the labor that went into it. If you could, then seeing a price tag for your 10 sodas at $10 would tell us something than the same sodas at $4.98. That is because price is subjective, not objective (like ballistics).

1
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

Lets pick a random, but somewhat 'standard' price point of $1/ can.

Most stores would probably choose to sell at 98c/ can

Then you have buying in bulk - buy 10 cans for $8.98 instead of $10.00

Alright, and I can appreciate the logic for why the price is slightly higher or lower in certain cases, but why is the 'starting' price a dollar per unit to begin with? How does the store come up with that number?

Did they, like, do a survey before the product came to market and asked everybody what they'd be willing to pay for a certain volume of beverage they enjoy? Or, what? Where does that number come from?

one of the issues with the LTV is . . . You can't look at any price for any product and know anything about the labor that went into it.

For this to be a 'problem' would require they believe you can determine this, wouldn't you say?

If so: do they believe that? What makes you think they do or don't?

1
soskroodWarned you we tried Listen you did not Now Skrood we all will be•

Where does that number come from?

Clearing current and expected future costs, plus an arbitrary markup. It is literally a subjective number that the store owner picks, having studied market trends for similar products in the area. Thankfully, due to the subjectivity of it, the store owner is free to modify it as situation changes.

Did they, like, do a survey before the product came to market and asked everybody what they'd be willing to pay for a certain volume of beverage they enjoy?

Sometimes, yes. Market surveys of this time were huge in the 80's. When I was a child, my parents would take me to these as a way to get free toys (we were dirt poor). They would watch me play (with other kids / parent around doing the same thing) - maybe ask a few basic questions: "what is your favorite part, what do you like the most about it" etc. Then ask the parents what they would pay for a toy like that.

For this to be a 'problem' would require they believe you can determine this, wouldn't you say?

Yes - many a marxist has gone to great lengths to prove it in an academic sense as well.

If so: do they believe that? What makes you think they do or don't?

I would have to say they do. If the LTV is going to be in any way superior to the STV, it must have some predictive power. I'm not sure, given the error bars of 50% on our little soda example, that we could call the LTV successful in that quest.

1
Vejasple•

If you don’t value soda, why would you want to take it? People who really value soda vote for it with their money and so stuff ends where it’s most valued. It’s the most effective resource distribution.

4
unconformableCommunist•

Cause you don't have any money...

-1
specterofsandersismPosadist•

If you don’t value soda, why would you want to take it?

Because other people do.

-1
SerendipitySocietyAbolish the commons•

The buyer is not the only party to trade. The subjective value is arrived at through arbitration between two parties, a buyer and seller.

If a shop owner started selling soda at a loss or payed their customers to take it, so long as there are no individual limits and this isn't a promotion, the owner will lose out on potential profits, because they made a previous exchange with a soda wholesaler for the lot of soda, and their subjective valuation of the soda at point of sale will always take wholesale prices into account.

4
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

The subjective value is arrived at through arbitration between two parties, a buyer and seller.

But I'm the subject. From my perspective, the store isn't the subject. Otherwise it'd be the store's perspective. Isn't value subjective?

2
SerendipitySocietyAbolish the commons•

You may be thinking of utility. On the other hand, I might not be thinking of utility, which is subjective unless if you have something to say about it.

What I mean to say is, at the point of sale, the items being bargained have value to their new owners according in part to the utility the owners expect from them, the price of the item, and the cost of doing business, but there are other complicating factors in how a party estimates value. There's two parties in this exchange, and there always has been, so the sellers estimate value and choose whether or not to conduct trade by similar considerations, but they cannot enforce the buyer's estimated value, since the buyer has individual considerations that the seller simply can't experience, and vice versa.

3
ILikeBumblebees•

From my perspective, the store isn't the subject. Otherwise it'd be the store's perspective. Isn't value subjective?

"Subjective" ≠ "solipsistic". The value of the soda to you is subjective to you; the value of the soda to the owners of the store is subjective to them. Whether or not you engage in trade depends on where your respective subjective evaluations of the soda in relation to whatever is offered in exchange intersect with each other.

You and the other party are both the subjects here; the object is the soda itself, but the value of the soda is not an intrinsic property of the soda itself -- i.e. it is not objective -- and remains subjective regardless of how many subjects are involved.

2
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

The value of the soda to you is subjective to you; the value of the soda to the owners of the store is subjective to them. Whether or not you engage in trade depends on where your respective subjective evaluations

I see. So, do you think it would be possible for us to understand the relationship between the subjective valuations that comprise the economy, in such a way that we might gain some kind of insight about how these valuations go on to inform what prices I eventually have to pay for things that I want?

2
ILikeBumblebees•

So, do you think it would be possible for us to understand the relationship between the subjective valuations that comprise the economy, in such a way that we might gain some kind of insight about how these valuations go on to inform what prices I eventually have to pay for things that I want?

In fact, there's an entire discipline of study known as "economics" that examines exactly this.

3
slayermentExitarian (crowdfreedom.com)•

Does that mean I can go into a store and take their soda?

No, it's not your property.

I value it at zero, so that's how much I'll give them in return.

They don't accept your offer.

It has no value, as we've established, so why would anybody stop me from taking it?

Because it has value to them.

Surely the store should want me to take it, so they can put something valuable in that space instead, right?

It's valuable to them and others who want to buy it. Not you.

Subjective value doesn't turn a single subjective value into an objective value for all.

4
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

They don't accept your offer.

it has value to them

I am a bit confused here. Why is their opinion relevant? The premise is that value is subjective. That means it's determined by the subject, which in this case is me. When we say something like taste in ice cream is subjective, that means I get to decide which ice cream I like. We wouldn't say something like, "Well you like strawberry, but I like vanilla, so we have to compromise and both agree to like some kind of half-strawberry half-vanilla ice cream."

1
ILikeBumblebees•

I am a bit confused here. Why is their opinion relevant? The premise is that value is subjective. That means it's determined by the subject, which in this case is me.

No, you're mistaken. The subject is the person performing the action, and in this case, the action in question is deciding the asking price for the soda. The store owners are the one doing that, so the subject here is them, not you.

When we say something like taste in ice cream is subjective, that means I get to decide which ice cream I like. We wouldn't say something like, "Well you like strawberry, but I like vanilla, so we have to compromise and both agree to like some kind of half-strawberry half-vanilla ice cream."

Who's "we" here? If someone else is making the ice cream, then they're going to use their own subjective criteria to decide what kind of ice cream to make. If you like vanilla, and they offer vanilla, then great -- your respective subjective choices have generated a mutually beneficial opportunity for exchange. If you like vanilla, but they don't like making vanilla ice cream, then you'll have to go elsewhere.

OTOH, if you and I have pooled our resources in order to purchase a single unit of ice cream to be shared between us, then a compromise in favor of "some kind of half-strawberry half-vanilla ice cream" is precisely the sort of thing we might agree on. Maybe we'll even find a third participant who likes chocolate, and buy a Neapolitan.

5
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

So, does my subjective valuation determine the price of the soda, or not?

2
ILikeBumblebees•

Not in isolation, no. As has been explained, the price of the soda -- as distinct from its value -- is determined by the relationship of the subjective valuations of all of the parties involved, not just yours.

3
Summerroll9Liberal Democratic Capitalist•

It determines your valuation, not the price, which is the intersection of valuations.

2
Gootmud•

If you're taking their soda, you obviously value it higher than zero.

3
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

See my reply to green_meklar.

1
RandomCapitalist•

Economic value is subjective. I'm the subject. That means the economic value of things is dependent upon me.

No, it means it's different for everyone. You don't know what the word subjective even means.

If you value it at zero then you wouldn't take it. Jesus lol

If you steal it, you still value it, you're just a piece of shit who doesn't want to reimburse people for the shit you want from them.

3
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

No, it means it's different for everyone.

So, everyone who buys soda pays a different price? Strange, I thought that price tag on the shelf was for everyone. Is there some way I can observe what other people are being charged for the things I buy? You know, for science.

0
RandomCapitalist•

So, everyone who buys soda pays a different price?

Price isn't value, it's price.

You moderate a forum about god damn economics and don't fucking know how price and value are related? Hmmmm, the mind boggles as to why this place is such a dumpsterfire.....

The price at exchange doesn't tell us how much people value something you fucking idiot, it tells us that the person selling values their possession LESS than the person buying. It doesn't tell us the exact dollar amount that it's worth to both parties.

Did you get kicked in the fucking head by a horse this weekend? How did you get so retarded so fast?

2
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

it tells us that the person selling values their possession LESS than the person buying

I think it just tells us they prefer the money.

0
RandomCapitalist•

You have to either be trolling at this point in your own terribly moderated dumpsterfire or it's time to change out your drool-bib.

2
ILikeBumblebees•

Does that mean I can go into a store and take their soda?

No, of course not. The soda already belongs to someone else, and they obviously don't value it at zero on account of their having deliberately made the effort to produce or acquire it; the soda itself is a rival good, so taking it from them obviously deprives them of their subjective value.

Why would you take something you've explicitly pointed out that you don't want, anyway?

I value it at zero, so that's how much I'll give them in return.

But they don't value it at zero, so they'll reject your offer of zero in exchange for the soda.

I think there are two fundamental errors evident in the way you've set up this premise. First, you've seem to have conflated value -- which is intrinsically subjective -- with price, which is an inter-subjective point of equilibrium between two or more parties' disparate assignments of subjective value to the thing in question.

Second, you seem to be treating property rights as being established by or justified according to some model of economic value, whereas property rights exist a priori, derived from the intrinsically rival nature of matter and space, and assessments of value are relevant to economic exchange that takes place as a consequence of goods already being rival.

2
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

they obviously don't value it at zero

Why does it matter that value is "subjective" if there's all these non-subjective factors, such as how people who aren't me value things, that affect my relationship to the things that I subjectively value?

you've seem to have conflated value with price

I don't think so, though I hope you'll agree they are related.

property rights as being established by or justified according to some model of economic value

No, I would respect their property rights by paying them; it's just unclear why they aren't charging the amount of money at which I would value their soda, since value is supposed to be subject and all.

1
ILikeBumblebees•

Why does it matter that value is "subjective" if there's all these non-subjective factors, such as how people who aren't me value things, that affect my relationship to the things that I subjectively value?

No, those aren't non-subjective factors. Your semantics are a bit out of whack here: as I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, "subjective" is not synonymous with "solipsistic". Other people's assessments of value are subjective to them just as yours are subjective to you.

The object in this scenario is the soda itself, and the subjects -- note the plural -- are the people making evaluative judgments about the soda. The value of the soda is determined by those evaluative judgments, and not by any quality intrinsic to the soda independently of its relationship with any person or persons, so its value remains subjective regardless of how many subjects are involved.

I don't think so, though I hope you'll agree they are related.

Haven't I already? Did you not see that I already described price as directly emerging from the relationship between disparate parties' subjective determinations of value?

it's just unclear why they aren't charging the amount of money at which I would value their soda, since value is supposed to be subject and all.

Well, first, you clearly are conflating price and value here, since you're talking about the amount of money actually being charged for the soda -- which is its inter-subjectively determined price -- as though it were the individually subjective value of the soda.

Secondly, you understand that in a more fundamental grammatical sense, the "subject" is the person performing the action, right? When they are deciding what price to ask for their soda, they -- not you -- are obviously the "subject" in question.

2
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

other people's assessments of value are subjective to them just as yours are subjective to you.

Why are you telling me this?

you're talking about the amount of money actually being charged for the soda -- which is its inter-subjectively determined price -- as though it were the individually subjective value of the soda

I asked a question about the difference between the two values.

1
ILikeBumblebees•

Why are you telling me this?

Well, I thought doing so would clarify the meaning of "subjective" with respect to the scope of this conversation, and help you see where you were erroneously interpreting it to imply a kind of solipsism.

I asked a question about the difference between the two values.

I'm not seeing that question -- all I see is you asking why the price isn't equal to your subjective value.

2
WingsOfReason•

Subjective value isn't exactly how much value you personally deem things, it's more how much you would be willing to exchange were you to exchange for it. Or even how much you would believe it would be exchanged for, especially if you can't afford it, like the Mona Lisa (not "subjective" by definition, but it follows the same concept). As others have said, this doesn't determine the final price, it only sets up one half of the equation until the other party (seller) agrees with the price.

2
End-Da-Fed•

This has nothing to do with LTV. Not sure what the question is here.

2
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

Not directly, but the implications are only interesting to somebody who dismisses the LTV.

1
End-Da-Fed•

LTV [doesn't exist] (https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/87k4ph/marxists_ltv_is_an_antiquated_theory_that_no/) anymore anyway. Only kids on the internet ignorant of economics think it's still legitimately used by any real economist on earth or in any credible academic setting. Only STV exits and is credible at the moment. When the next big invention or automated event occurs STV will be rendered irrelevant and replaced by something new.

Just like some people still insist on the flat earth theory, some people still insist on LTV.

1
Hpunk98Social Democrat•

I don't like soda. Does that mean I can go into a store and take their soda?

No why would it? Isn't stv supposed to go both ways?

Surely the store should want me to take it

You aren't the only person in the market so no, they wouldn't.

1
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

Isn't stv supposed to go both ways?

I am confused about what this means. Can you clarify?

1
Hpunk98Social Democrat•

Doesn't the seller also have a subjective value of how low he's willing to sell his product for? Perhaps I'm thing of marginal value or something.

1
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

What determines how much the seller values what they're selling?

1
Hpunk98Social Democrat•

His marginal cost?

1
Ashleyj590•

No STV doesn't go both ways. I value my labor more than my employer pays me. I have no choice but to take his offer.

-1
ILikeBumblebees•

I have no choice but to take his offer.

I mean, if your employer is connecting electrodes up to your motor nerves that override your own ability to control your actions, I wouldn't consider that "taking his offer", but I can't imagine any other scenario in which you literally had no other choice but to work for him.

3
Hpunk98Social Democrat•

Or start a coop, or a commune, or live in the woods but sure, you have "no choice" but to take his offer right.

If stv offers no choice then I guess it makes sense why modern economist favor the marginal theory of value over both it and ltv.

1
Ashleyj590•

Can't start a coop under capitalism without capital. Can't start a commune under capitalism without capital. Can't live in the woods under captialism without capital. So yeah, I have no choice but to take his offer to acquire the capital necessary for those activities.... The fact he values my labor less than I can bargain for is proof the STV doesn't go both ways. THere are inherent power differences that contribute to it.

-1
ILikeBumblebees•

Can't start a coop under capitalism without capital.

No, you can't start a co-op under the laws of physics without capital, since doing things with matter and space require you to first accumulate the necessary quantity of matter and space and assert exclusive control over them.

3
Hpunk98Social Democrat•

You can't do any work without capital so wtf are you talking about? Working with others provides more opportunity to raise capital, nature has resources available to use if you have the knowledge to extract them, etc. You clearly have no idea how reality works if you think the only form of job that exists is working under somebody else.

1
TheAvalonianMarket Socialist | Transhumanist•

You value the payment from the employer more than the face value of the money, since it allows you to not starve to death. The utility you assign to money is inversely proportional to your income -- the less you have, the more getting another $X means to you. Only when your basic needs are met -- when you have no time constraint on when you need the money -- do you value your wages solely for their purchasing power and not as a means to acquire those basic needs.

The STV accurately predicts that your wages (the amount of $ you receive) will be lower than the" worth" of your labour (the amount of $ the capitalist makes from the labour you do), so long as you do not receive a living wage from other sources. It's not exactly Marxian exploitation, since it is no longer possible to exploit a person who receives a living wage from e.g. stock dividends (as that person would just quit -- see r/financialindependence for examples), but it's close enough.

1
OlejzMakuobligatory vague and needlessly specific ideology•

Do you value good relations with your neighbours?

1
Emoticone11For Planning and Information Theory•

Suprised that there are no good answers here so far. I'm not a subjectivist, but I can explain it pretty well.

So the idea is that "value" isn't something formed in exchange as it is in the classical sense; rather, it's something which precedes exchange. People have valuations of things, whether or not they get those things represents a later question.

How do these "valuations" work? It's simple enough. If you can imagine "baskets" of goods, there must be some baskets I prefer equally to others. For now, let's look at two goods: apples and bread. I might prefer a basket with 1 apple and 2 bread equivalently to a basket with 0 apple and 6 bread, and that represents my subjective tastes. There are other such baskets, and these lie along an "indifference curve". What if I were offered a basket with 1 apple and 6 bread? I would clearly be happier with this basket than the one with 0 apple and 6 bread, and so this basket must lie along a higher indifference curve. We obviously can't just get any basket, though. We're also constrained by a budget, represented by a linear curve determined by our total income and the relative prices of apples and bread. We then want the highest indifference curve which we can afford, and if we make certain assumptions about the nature of indifference curves (namely, that they are convex and decreasing), we can identify one unique basket, which is the one on the indifference curve tangent to our budget.

None of this is value yet, though. Value is meant to answer the question "how much do I value this good", not a basket of goods. However, once we know the basket we would most prefer with our budget, we can calculate the answer to this question- the value is thus our willingness to pay for one of those goods- the maximum price we would pay for it. This quantity is supposed to be subjectively determined by each actor.

Of course, in an exchange, you can assert "I would be willing to pay at most this much for a bottle of soda", but the seller has been subconsciously going through the exact same process. They have some willingness to accept, which is the minimum amount of money someone would have to pay them to get them to part with their soda.

For the exchange to happen, then, my WTP has to be equal to or greater than their WTA. If my WTP is greater, we negotiate some price in-between and some amount of social benefit comes as a result of the exchange- we're both better off.

It's a fundamentally nice and simple concept, but unfortunately falls victim to a certain circularity addressed by Joan Robinson and the other Post-Keynesians.

1
HeFlipYaStooge for Big Ordinal Preference•

My reading of Robinsons critique is essentially that changing preferences could explain the phenomenon that marginal utility explains, so revealed preference that appears to be decreasing marginal utility due to diminishing returns could simply be changing tastes, or vice-versa or both. Either marginal utility theory assumes preferences do not change (obviously false) or it is empirically unverifiable, because we cannot determine if the revealed preferences was caused by changing preferences, or if the law of diminishing returns was the causal factor in the change we measured through revealed preferences. There are multiple causal factors which cannot be differentiated empirically.

Does that sound about right?

1
Emoticone11For Planning and Information Theory•

Yup, I'd say that's a pretty good summary of her critique.

1
SocialismEcksDeeMinarchism, Natural Law, Free Markets. •

Warning OP

Many subjectivists (not most, but many) have no clue what Austrian value scales are

1
shimapanloverSocial Market Economy•

A value is assigned when a transaction happens between two parties. A transaction is an agreement about the value between supply and demand. In your case there was no agreement, the value you assigned to the product didn't align with the supplier's view of the value of his property.

1
HeFlipYaStooge for Big Ordinal Preference•

Does that mean I can go into a store and take their soda? I value it at zero, so that's how much I'll give them in return.

If you take the soda, that is theft, so there are probably consequences, you may want to check the law in your jurisdiction.

It has no value

Correct, which means you are unlikely to engage in consensual exchange with the merchant, as your mutual evaluations of the sodas value do not overlap at all making exchange unlikely.

1
NoShit_94Somalian Warlord•

You may value it zero, the store owner doesn't. He values it more than zero, and thus he won't accept zero in exchange for it.

I don't really understand why you'd think that because you don't value something, nobody else does either.

1
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

the store owner doesn't. He values it more than zero

Why?

1
NoShit_94Somalian Warlord•

Why do people value things? Because they bring them perceived benefits.

1
ToXlC911Minarchist•

No, because the store obviously doesn't value the soda at zero.

1
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

I see. So, why does the store value the soda at what it values it? What informs my subjectivity is how much I want to drink it, or, whatever, use it in some way. What informs the store's perspective?

1
ToXlC911Minarchist•

They use what the average person values it at, which is the market price.

1
HhturaOPnational-syndicalist, post-communist•

I don't think that's how that works. The average person probably doesn't value MTG cards at all but they still sell for a pretty high price, because some people value them highly. That's why it's called marginal utility, not average.

1
ToXlC911Minarchist•

The market price is only determined by those who want them.

1