"Value" is multidimensional and context dependent even for an individual. The value of sleep, or food, varies quite a bit depending on how much I've had recently. You can't actually reduce "value" to a single metric, whether you call it money or anything else.
Value, at least in my case, is also non-transitive, non-commutative, and non-distributive. -- Charles On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Deepa Mohan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Biju Chacko <[email protected]> > wrote:= > > . Once money, especially in the form of hourly wage, is used as the > fundamental measure of the worth of activities, where do we stop? > > > > The gentleman evidently doesn't understand economics. I'm not an > > economist myself, but economic theory states that the rational choice > > in any situation is the one that provides the most value. That > > naturally implies that you should have a clear understanding of the > > value attached to any action. That value varies from person to person > > -- which is why my Dad would spend an hour extra in Madiwala market to > > save a few rupees per kg on vegetables than I would. My time is worth > > more to me than the 30-40 rupees that would be saved. > > > > Clearly, the author attaches more value to chopping wood than the cost > > of the firewood thus produced. But he's wrong in saying we can't or > > shouldn't measure this value using money. Like it or not, money is our > > civilization's measure of value. More accurately, whatever we measure > > value with becomes money. In this case, the author is willing to forgo > > revenue earning work in order to chop wood. Lets say he'd be able to > > earn $100 in that time. Therefore, the time spent chopping wood > > provides him with at least $100.01 worth of satisfaction. As a bonus, > > he also gets firewood -- which just improves the value of the > > transaction. In economic terms, it's an eminently sensible decision. > > And ne'er the twain shall meet....his point seems to be that we can't > keep attaching only monetary value to the things we do...and here we > are, doing just that; the point of your response seems to be that it > HAS to be reduced to money value. Why is he wrong, and why do you say > you are right? How do you answer the question he poses (I've included > it at the top)? If I stop to cook, to sroll around a park, should I > then say, I am using up time that I could be earning X rupees? > > However, I agree with you..." whatever we measure, or value with, > becomes money." However, I'd modify that....I'd say, currency, that > is valid for that person. (It obviously cannot become a standard for > economic transactions.) For something to become "money", it would have > to be universally applicable. > > I do feel that attaching monetary value to our time could lead to the > problem of our not wanting to "waste" time...we tend to shave off the > time we have to Wake Up And Smell The Coffee, or to Stand And Stare. > These are important parts of the human need, and contribute to our sum > total of happiness, and these bits of time cannot be monetised. > >
