Nostr

Replying to

Sasha

So a thought:

perhaps this platform provides you use, but unless you find value in this conversation, it’s not valuable

I think investors confuse value with use, which is perhaps why our markets are so mispriced

Use is worth more than value imho because it drives energy expenditure and thus consumption

Zach⚡️ 2y ago

It seems like we have a disagreement on semantics. I value this conversation because I want to come to a mutual understanding.

Would saying “use is worth more than value” be a subjective value judgement itself?

I think the way Marx saw things is fundamentally flawed. All economics and human interaction is based on value judgements. Some things may seem to be “useful”, but they are only used in so far as they are valued by someone. To define something by its perceived usefulness is a value judgement in of itself.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Sasha 2y ago

Yes I agree his opinions were “flawed”, but perhaps only because it was created in completely different context

Worth is not subjective according to free market disciples, everything is priced, every interaction is pegged a number

Use is not a choice imho, just like you can’t choose to communicate with me in any other way but by moving your thumbs right this moment

Value is the choice

Which is why marx was flawed by trying to combine the two concepts, they should be separated

Zach⚡️ 2y ago

Worth is subjective in a free market.

Sure, things are priced, but they are priced by individuals making value judgements and prices can change based on changes in value judgements. There is no objective price for anything. It’s just what someone is willing to sell something for and what someone is willing to pay. Only under communism do people try to enforce objective pricing, and it always leads to disaster.

My thumbs may be the most valuable tool I have to communicate digitally with you, but I don’t need to use them unless I value this communication.

There is no objective “use” for anything, and no objective “price” for anything. Both of those emerge because of how we individually choose to value things.

I highly recommend the book by nostr:npub1gdu7w6l6w65qhrdeaf6eyywepwe7v7ezqtugsrxy7hl7ypjsvxksd76nak “Principles of Economics” for a better breakdown of these ideas.

Sasha 2y ago

Traditional Econ needs a serious update. It assumes consumers are rational, which is severely off base from current reality (thank you marketing!)

It also assumes the households (not firms) own the means of production, which is also, severely off base from current reality

Unless you want to count like 100 households out of billion as “households”

We call them family offices now. They’re not households.

Zach⚡️ 2y ago

Well, the book is only a couple months old!

Also, it’s objectively useful 😉

Sasha 2y ago

I’ll check it out but all that traditional Econ has helped me with is seeing just how much needs to be updated in legacy subject matter principles

It’s sooo far from the current reality

And any one who tries to publish anything that doesn’t reinforce legacy subject matter principles will never get read until they’re dead

(Unless you’re a fiction writer and decide to designate your ideas as “fiction”)

That’s why the computer engineering community is “up” right now, because it was comprised of people who weren’t afraid to update legacy because they exist in a space where there is no legacy

They will hit a legacy “wall” at a certain point though, I’m sure, everything does

Sasha 2y ago

Thinking that value judgements are made when I go to Starbucks:

No, Starbucks provides me a “use-case” (using my feet to get there, my gas to drive there, the energy spent speaking to the barista, etc), the calories of the drink can offset the amount of energy used. That’s what needs to be taken into pricing a little bit more.

The idea that I derive value from this shitty coffee is absolutely dumb. Because I didn’t. I made an irrational decision as a consumer, like so many other consumers, which is why our markets are currently irrational. However it IS worth the energy I spent, so I’m not saying it doesn’t belong in the economy or the coffee shouldn’t be priced, but to call that pricing as an indicator of “value” would be incorrect.

Zach⚡️ 2y ago

You spent time and resources to go to Starbucks, traded money for coffee, and yet you don’t value the coffee and you think you just did it because you’re an irrational actor?

You can’t just assert that the price should be whatever the amount of energy it took you to get to Starbucks is. The price is set by the people who produced the good and sell it, not the people who come and consume.

With that said, producers change prices when too many/not enough people are consuming their products, but they do so through their own free behavior. Mandating that prices should be something because you subjectively ‘feel’ they are irrational is not how a free economy works.

Sasha 2y ago

I can and I will, so I can understand the true price of something and then arbitrage for when the shadow eye of the free market reveals truth and ppl like you who consistently misprice things over and over stand there shocked and confused on wtf happened

Zach⚡️ 2y ago

There’s a big difference between “this is a price I’m not willing to pay and I think is unreasonable” and “there are objective prices and society needs to adopt them by decree”

You are always free to not consume or make decisions based on your own subjective value judgements. Just don’t try and mandate others to have to follow the judgements you make.

I’m interested in how you think you are better at pricing things then everyone else in the market, and yet you also claim to be irrational and gave an example of you paying prices you don’t think are worth it for Starbucks? Seems to be a bit of a disconnect there.