Talk:Theory of value (economics)/Archives/2012

misleading links

There were some quite misleading links to Theory of value which redirected to Goodness and value theory

Objectivist theory

The Objectivist theory (or Objective theory, as referred to by Ayn Rand) is given undue weight in this article. Intrinsic and subjective theories are widely held by dozens of the most important economists in history. The Objectivist theory is held by one author, who wasn't even an economist. It does not belong here. -- Nikodemos 21:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The heliocentric theory of the solar system was a widely held theory throughout history. Does this mean that it is the only theory that should be presented? Just because the objectivist theory is newer, and less well known, doesn't mean it should not be presented. By the way, I suspect that, from your personal point of view, it is better to keep the discussion between intrinsic and subjective, as you are quite comfortable "debunking" the subjective theory, but don't know how to even begin to critique the objective theory. Since it seems that your personal goal is to advance the Labor Theory of Value, this would make sense. Not once have you given me a meaningful reason for taking out objectivism, other than historical reasons. Never have you given a reason that is related to the theory itself. And the undue weight requirement says not to include tiny viepoints. Ayn Rand is hardly a tiny minority. Considering that the objectivist theory is not a "crackpot" theory, I fail to see why you keep removing her from articles. Is it because objectivism is harder to defend yourself against? -- Dullfig 17:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I removed the link to worth, as it led to a disambiguation page, none of whose options seemed appropriate. I'm learning economics from wikipedia. I suspect that somewhere in 'value' and 'worth' there is a murky metaphysical concept, at least with some theories.

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Value (economics)

I read on this page, and on the page Value (economics) that there has been suggested to merge these articles. But I nowhere find any argument for it. Perhaps it's better to first write down some arguments, and leave these banners behind till then? ... (Or perhaps it's even better to just enhance the articles).... Dick Bos (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I came from Subjective theory of value. There is the same stupid banner. Of course I disagree with this merge. I think some plain stupid people just enjoy putting banners on the articles threatening them like damoclean swords. --Lucinos (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)