Talk:Value (economics)/Archives/2015
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Complaint
This page needs a lot of work; it was just cut and paste from original value article. Dullfig 18:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Psychic value
A search for "psychic value" on Wikipedia turns up nothing. I started to suggest a page for it, but found there isn't even a "Marketing" section under "Business and Economics". After some poking around, it appears to me that this might be the page it belongs on, along with other types of "value", such as "use value" and "sale value".
"Psychic value", as any introductory advertising textbook will tell you, is the value that people associate with a product or service which lies outside of its physical attributes. For example, you might buy "fair market" products because it makes you feel good to support the producers, or you might smoke Marlboros because you feel a vicarious identification with the cool macho guy on the horse in the advertisements. And so on -- it's a fairly broad term. I searched for an online reference, but couldn't find any, although there are some hits in Google's book search. The closest I came was this article in Reason which uses the term correctly (but doesn't define it):
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n1_v30/ai_20529214/pg_4
It appears to be too much of a jargon word to be in any of the dictionaries I could find. Digitante (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Neoclassical Hijacking of Economics
The neoclassical economists would have us believe that because economics is used to discuss markets and because markets have existed since the time of Adam Smith then value theory cannot exist without markets. This is, of course, like much in neoclassical economics, a self serving and self fulfilling prophecy. The concept of value exists outside of markets and outside of economics and the use of the term within the field of economics is not really very different than the use of the term in lay conversation. The difference may well be that we are able to measure the extent of economic values using definite metrics. This need not imply that there be a consensus on value metrics or value assessment. It is possible to develop metrics in a unitary environment without any trade between people. Therefore, the insistence that a market is required to determine value is bogus. And the notion that market price and value are synonymous is equally bogus. --The Trucker (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
That is perfectly reasonable to say that there is something prior to exchange or market value. The idea is to call it 'worth' (i.e. as a pre-cattalactic notion to distinquish it from the catalactic notion of value ('catalactic' means related to exchange)). It might be 'psychic value' as in consumption neoclassics, it might be based on labor, in which case classical economics prefers 'labor value' or simply 'value' (as Marx) to denote the pre-exchange concept (but it doest use the 'worth'). Currently I think that there is truly a tendency in some academic circles to denote utility (monetary value in private eye) as 'worth' .See S.Sayce et al "From Value to worth", Blackwell publishing, 2006 Artemenkov (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)