Talk:Intrinsic theory of value/Archives/2012

diamond-water paradox

Please be aware that (some) intrinsic theories of value do explain the diamond-water paradox. For instance, according to the labor theory of value, diamonds are worth more than water because the labor necessary to produce a finished diamond is far greater than the labor necessary to get water. -- Nikodemos 00:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it does not explain why big diamonds, which take less work to dig up, are more valuable than small diamonds, which take more work. -- Dullfig 00:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There is an article explaining all this, Paradox of value Dullfig 00:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I know. I didn't say that ITVs explain the paradox perfectly; some ITVs don't even try to explain it, because they see the question of the price of diamonds and water as fundamentally different from the question of their inherent worth. Suppose there was a village of lunatics who thought dog excrement was beautiful. If there were very few dogs in that village, their excrement might end up selling at a high price on the market, due to supply and demand. Supporters of subjective theories would argue that dog excrement really is worth that much in that village, and challenge supporters of ITV to explain this apparent paradox. Supporters of ITV would simply dismiss it saying that the villagers are insane, and there is no paradox to explain. -- Nikodemos 00:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That might be so, but it would not explain, for example, why a stone may have a value of "weapon" to a meat eating caveman, whereas the same stone might have the value of "grindstone" to a vegetarian caveman. But they both derived the value from the same property of the stone, namely "hard and heavy". Each human being is a context unto himself. He ascribes value to objects, based on his own needs, and the properties of the object. In other words, value is determined by finding a good "fit" between an object's properties, and your needs. -- Dullfig 02:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The ITV says that the stone always has the same value; it has the value of a weapon and a grindstone. Different people may see only parts of the stone's full value, however. A hunter, for example, might not see its value as a grindstone. -- Nikodemos 21:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Incidentaly, if you read the page on Paradox of value, you will see that, for example, if a man is dying of thirst in the desert, and he has a bag of diamonds, he very well may find a glass of water worth more than the entire bag of diamonds. All of a sudden it matters very little how much work it took to mine those diamonds. That is because water is the only thing with the property "kills thirst". Within the context at the time, the man made a value judgment based on the properties of the objects at hand, and his own needs. -- Dullfig 02:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That is the subjective solution to the diamond-water paradox: The worth of any item depends on people's subjective judgements. The added element of objective properties of items does not contradict the STV; it is merely irrelevant to it. The STV is not concerned with how people make judgements. It seems to me that the Objectivist theory of value = STV + a theory of how judgements are made and what judgements are right. -- Nikodemos 21:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you read Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand?

Merging

By all means! I had not noticed that the title has a typo, and therefore is a duplicate of an existing article. I would say it needs merging. Dullfig 07:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging with finance article

I do not agree with the merger proposal. They are totally unrelated subjects, even if they are called similarly. Here we are talking about a general theory of value of everything, the finance article deals in commodities. Unrelated. Dullfig 16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right - other article is a term of art in securities, not general economic idea.--Colindownes 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Distinguishing from finance article

Some pages where the relevant concept 'intrinsic value' or 'fundamental value' of a financial asset (present value of its expected income stream) instead link to this page. We should make clear that this page does NOT deal with that concept. I will add some text at the top to help users find the finance page. But I'm not really sure how to describe what THIS page is. I will say it has something to do with the philosophy of value, but if someone else can be clearer that would be great. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the comment about 'value investors', since that is related to the financial topic, not the philosophical topic. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

rm merge proposition

as no one seems to support this proposition (see: Theory of value (economics)), I removed it. Dick Bos (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)