Paul, this is getting OT...but "value" is what something sells for, or the future value it will be agreed to sell for. Otherwise it's subjective "value" to the individual meets reality eventually.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 9:43 AM Paul Koning via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > On Aug 25, 2023, at 9:39 AM, Bill Degnan via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 9:27 AM Paul Koning via cctalk < > > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >>> On Aug 24, 2023, at 9:29 PM, Sellam Abraham via cctalk < > >> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> ... > >>> It's obvious that the Apple 1 has the value it does not so much for its > >>> technology but for what it represents, and that's all that matters. > >> > >> This reminds me of the observation that economics is a branch of > >> psychology: the value of stuff is subjective and personal. (It has to > be, > >> because in a trade each person exchanges an item for a different item > >> valued more highly *by that person*.) So arguing about it doesn't get > you > >> very far. > >> > >> paul > >> > >> > > Paul, > > Just to add my thoughts, not to argue....to me economics is based on > supply > > and demand. It's not as a science "subjective". Economists can only in > > hindsight quantify the impact of subjective factors on supply and demand > > after they actually have occurred. From that, one tries to predict the > > future taking past subjective impact to determine future economic > > outcomes, momemtum, etc. > > Yes, but I wasn't talking about that aspect, but about the concept of > "value". Communist pseudo-economics notwithstanding, value is in the eye > of the beholder. As I said, it must be: if I sell you my computer for > $100, and you buy it for that, it means I value $100 more than the > computer, and you value the computer more than $100. > > paul > >
