Labor Theory of Value

Coming from a guy who wears a rubber suit to bed, I think your condition might warrant another 220 volts that tumor in your skull.

 

Meta, you said changing from Fahrenheit to Celsius scale was a change in standard.

Changing technology simply meant better precision (More sig figs), that's the story of metrology. Once we all agreed on the new standard, it was fixed. That is not the type of change you were discussing nor does it change the fact that such measurement standards exist in physics but do not in economics. You were arguing for those standards, your point is still invalid.

There is only one standard for time, all science agrees on it. Will be change that in the future to get more sig fig? I don't know, but whatever the standard is it must remain fixed in time itself. Our choice may change in time, but the standard entity itself cannot.

The time interval delta t, you say has a fixed absolute meaning, but the only way we know that is because we have ever more precise measurement techniques. Again no analogy with econ, since we can't measure like that in econ.

But water is chosen, and I am not sure all other substances even have triple points. The key is not the choice, but that we actually have a choice with fixed properties, so again there are no such choices in econ.

before we argue dictionaries, first understand the difference between a reference point and a measurement standard. As you yourself point out, reference points can move, but measurement standards don't. If we are all boats and we all use a large cargo boat as a reference, then that's fine but however if we want to measure ourselves with respect to the reference, with say distance, then we must still have fixed measurement standards like the meter. What good is a point a reference if we can't measure with respect to it?

You might call an ounce of gold a standard of value, that doesn't make it so. The fact is you never measured it, nor are you able to since value is not an empirically defined property of gold that we can use as a standard. One cannot measure in dollars, they themselves are not fixed in any property.

 

I can't answer all today, be back Monday with the rest

Using the history of standards does not change the fact that a good standard is fixed in time. I agree that humans have changed standards, but that is to move to more precision, it does not mean that a good standard is supposed to change in time, it is not. You are conflating the two.

The English system, which uses feet, now simply references metric, not roman feet. All distance measurements now use the standard meter. There is no longer any changes in standard between units in the civilized world.

.

no, a good standard remains fixed in time, humanity has adopted better more precise standards over time as our technology evolves, but that does not change the definition of a good standard.

any fiat currency can be destroyed in a very short period of time, just because people all agree to take dollars now does not make it a permanent store of value. The dollar changes over time periods of seconds relative to everything else, inflation changes prices with a steady bias, quite the contrary- almost no smart person would sit on a pile of dollars and feel they have safe 'value'. At a minimum one would buy bonds to at least try and guard against inflation.

If the dollar is a standard, where is this empirical standard dollar value defined? Please provide, and notice I said empirical, I don't want some qualitative BS. At least you have given value units- dollars.

Your attempt to say that because humanity adopted more precise standards for physical measurement is in analogy to this is a false analogy. There has never been metrology in economics, especially with a psychological concept like value.

Do you understand what markets do? I am not trying to be disrespectful, but do you understand that markets are constantly repricing everything, that in macroeconomics humans never agree on price? do some homework, pull up a dollar index futures chart.

Do you know it contradictory to say the dollar measures the value of a brick, which is fixed, but that market prices changes daily? Do you understand that market value is simply the last trade, but that does not mean all humans would pay that price for the brick?

There can't be 'each different standard of measurement is a reference point. Refernce points are not standards, see my illustrations in the last posts.

 

Be careful if you have tax-differed mutual fund investments. An accountant will tell you that is the way to go--put it off as long as possible--but in realty it may be better to pay the taxes all long when you are making less money at a lower bracket instead of logjamming it at a point when one would presumably have their peak income with the lowest number of available deductions as their home is paid for, no education credits, no kids to deduct, etc.

 

I don't use exchange value, market price is all there is

All value is subjective, needs and wants are all emotional. Just because it may be instinctive, such as the need to eat or reproduce, that does not make it objective. Instinctive does not equal objective.

You put forth no objective criterion to separate your different value definitions. The second you even tried such a thing it would easily be destroyed. You have a real problem understanding that qualitative definitions are of zero use if they cannot be made empirical, since only empirical definitions are objective.

One cannot define biological necessity because it is impossible to objectively state how long a person should exist, how many kids they should have, what medical care is 'needed', what their exact needs are for psychological well being, etc. To do so is acting like you are a god.

.

nothing popped up.

No, millions of people choose suicide every year.

But let's entertain that for a second. Marginal utility says that the utility of something depends on how much you have. You can't say something has some fixed calculable, and instrinsic value of utility if that depends on how much of it exists. If there were always X humans with the exact same metabolic minimum requirements (meaning they all do the exact same thing everyday and have the exact same body chemistry, which is impossible of course), and the only food was corn which is always in daily supply quantity Y which always equaled human consumption Z, and the production inputs for growing the corn were always identical every single year (weather identical every single year)..... then yes you MIGHT start to build a case. In the real world however, food utility is only a qualitative notion which has paradoxical problems and cannot be made empirical meaning it is not objective and fixed.

You still have the larger issue as well, utility only resides in the human mind, not in the kernel of corn. Therefore it cannot be intrinsic to corn. Something intrinsic to corn itself cannot require the existence of humans for its own existence. Corn on mars has the same intrinsic properties and corn on earth (color, density, chemical composition, etc.), and it doesn't matter how much there is.

Since value is a relational phenomena, that is value of corn only has meaning when there is interaction of humans and corn, then there isn't any way to say it is intrinsic to corn.

 

Meta, let's do this exercise. Calculate the instrinsic value (utility) of two valued economic goods, corn and heart surgery. Also please explain how it is possible for a service to posses an objective property. I'll help you with the corn, attached is a daily price chart for july corn futures, updated as of right now. Then we'll discuss.

click here for the corn chart, the vertical scale is cents per bushel