David Schwartz wrote:
> "jmh" <j_m_h@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:C4ZTa.43273$AD3.4191@lakeread04...
> 
> 
>>That might be true. The problem is we dont know that.
>>We don't even know that about our selves. Most people
>>still seem to value live over death but not all; are
>>you the one who decides which is more valued or the
>>actual person whose life it is?
> 
> 
>     You are using the phrase "more valued" to mean how much someone values
> something. I'm not talking about "value" in the sense of considering to be
> of value. I'm talking about actually being of value. It doesn't matter what
> most people happen to value, I'm talking about what actually is of value,
> that is, what is actually capable of benefitting a person.
> 
> 

Value is subjective.  There is not such thing as a difference between 
actual value and considered value.  What you believe is "actual value" 
is what you believe it's value is.  I believe that what you call "actual 
value" is an opinion of yours.  What is capable of benefitting people is 
demonstrated through their actions over time.  Those who choose wrong, 
lose the ability to choose.

Value does not exist in an object without a subject.  It is not inherent 
in the object.  It is a result of the relationship between subject and 
object.

Look each person's value system is different from other people.  At the 
base of the hierarchy of "values" or "needs" we all have the same 
requirements.  Oxygen (in proper proportions) for breathing, Water for 
the body, Food for fuel, Sleep for repair functions, Shelter from 
elements (clothing and/or housing).  After that it starts to get much 
more varied.  People's wants and needs diverge.

>>>>Why not sit down an itemize exactly what is and is not a
>>>>benefit to human beings, such that we all agree, and see
>>>>just how simple it really is rather than talking about watering
>>>>plants as a means of addressing the question.
> 
> 
>>>    Because every human being is different. However, given the set of
> 
> facts
> 
>>>about a particular object and a particular human being, it is (at least
> 
> in
> 
>>>principle) an objective process to determine how much that object
> 
> benefits
> 
>>>that person.
> 
> 
>>But then doesn't that say something about a claim that
>>it's the labor that produces the value, as opposed to
>>labor that is very important in producing the objects
>>of value. I'm arguing against both the former proposition
>>and rhetorical styles that are easily confused with that
>>proposition.
> 
> 
>     No, it says nothing. I'm not saying that labor is the sole determinant
> in the amount of value. I'm saying labor produces the value.
> 
> 

How does labor produce value?  Value is a result of the relationship 
between subject and object.  The object does not require human labor to 
exist!

Your assuming that because labor appears to influence value under 
certain circumstances it is the determining feature of value.  It isn't.

For example, I own a car.  I want to sell it.  I have two perspective 
buyers.  One is a auto parts reseller, the other is a commuter.  The 
reseller would take the car for $400 as is.  The commuter would pay $600 
for it as is.  Why the different values?  The same labor exists in the 
car.  Now, if I am willing to pull the car apart into different pieces, 
the reseller will now pay me $1000 for the result.  However, the 
commuter will only pay me $200.  Why?

My labor did in fact affect the value of the car.  But that effect 
depends on the subject evaluating the result of the labor, in this case 
a disassembled car!  Value is the result of appraisal.  The appraiser 
determines the value!  Whether or not I put in the labor to disassemble 
the car is determined by my prediction of the effect that labor will 
have on the value of the vehicle to consumers of that vehicle in the 
market.

Labor is applied where it produces value! Labor is labor whether or not 
it affects value.  Labor that doesn't result in an increase in value 
doesn't survive in the market.  However, labor that doesn't produce the 
predicted increase in value does exist in the market!

>>>>So you think anyone else can make the determination of
>>>>what does and does not benefit you? How about someone
>>>>that is 10,000 miles away and has never met you?
> 
> 
>>>    This is inane. Yes, a person 10,000 miles away could make that
>>>determination provided he had the relevent objective facts. But even I
> 
> 
>>Which is a HUGH assumption. It's fairly rare that even one's
>>intimate friends are able to fully understand the wants and
>>desires a person has. I would make a wilde guess that if
>>someone did that even close to half the time they'd be way into
>>the category of "a keeper"--to use a fishing phrase.
> 
> 
>     Why does it even matter. Suppose hypothetically I agreed that it was
> literally impossible for anyone to even hazzard a guess at how valuable
> something was even to themself. What effect would that have on the question
> of where value comes from?
> 
>     Primitive men at one point had no way at all to measure how much light
> was coming from the sun. In fact, they might have felt that it was
> impossible to quantify such a light. Would you argue that because they can't
> tell exactly how much light there is, they can't conclude that the sun is
> the source of it?

Value in economics is a proposition of action.  Value is determined by 
preference.  Unless someone acts no preference is demonstrated, 
therefore valuation (economically) has not occured.

Now give me an action the caveman can perform to demonstrate that he 
values the sun more than not having the sun!

As long as the sun is a constant and is sufficient to all demand, it's 
value in the society is zero!  No one will pay to have it.  Because they 
have it and it is sufficient to their needs.  So, it had exactly zero 
value to the caveman.

> 
> 
>>The point is that it's each person who must be the one
>>performing the valuation and thus producing the value.
> 
> 
>     Performing the valuation does not produce the value. Performing the
> valuation computes the amount of the value. You might as well argue that
> unless we look at sunlight the sun isn't producing light. Something can be
> of value to me even if I don't know it exists, and there's a question of how
> that value got there and it's independent of how we can or can't figure out
> the quantity of that value.
> 
> 
>>If you want to get into cultural, psychological and
>>biological aspect I suspose one would say it's not
>>just the individual, but clearly it's not someone
>>elses labor in producing some commodity that is
>>doing it.
> 
> 
>     I've lost you know.

Because you're trying to talk about value outside of the realm of 
economics.  Valuation is an economic proposition.  Value is demonstrated 
as the preference of one action over another.
> 
> 
>>>    Yes, its value will differ from person to person. Whenever I talk of
>>>value, I mean the value of a particular thing to a particular person.
>>>
>>>    If a person has consumed so much water that he is bloated, that
> 
> water
> 
>>>would have no value to him. But I'm not talking about absence of value.
> 
> I'm
> 
>>>saying, if there is value, where did it come from, who or what makes
> 
> that
> 
>>>value possible.
>>>
>>>    If I dig an oil well, that is an application of human labor. The
> 
> same
> 
>>>amount of labor, however, might produce no oil or huge amounts of oil.
> 
> If no
> 
>>>oil is produce, well, nobody said labor is sure to produce value.
> 
> However,
> 
>>>if it does produce value, however much value it produced was produced by
>>>that labor.
> 
> 
>>But I would argue that it's the existance of the value prior to you
>>digging that cause you to do the digging. Therefore it's not
>>the digging that produced the value.
> 
> 
>     I don't follow you. Until we do human labor to figure out where to dig,
> we don't know where to dig, we dig randomly. If we know where the gold is
> likely to be, it's human labor that produced that knowledge, and hence the
> value of knowing where to dig.
> 
> 
>>>    I'm not saying the the amount of labor determines the amount of
> 
> value.
> 
>>>I'm not saying that the value is constant. I'm saying that value is
> 
> created
> 
>>>by labor. There can be no value without labor. And it's the laborer
> 
> that's
> 
>>>entitled (if they can obtain it by contract) to all of the value the
> 
> labor
> 
>>>produced.
> 
> 
>>Which I think it putting the cart before the horse.
> 
> 
>     I don't see why and you don't clarify.
> 
> 
>>>    Labor here means human effort of any kind. All value is potentially
>>>claimable by some laborer or set of laborers who created that value. Of
>>>course, laborers will not usually get all of the value they created.
>>>
>>>    I plant a nice garden that improves my neighbor's view. I have the
> 
> right
> 
>>>to try to contract for that value by telling my neighbor I won't plant
>>>unless he pays. But if he doesn't and I still benefit enough that I go
>>>through with it, the value of his improved view was created by my labor.
> 
> I
> 
> 
>>Which implies that there is some prior value that
>>is inducing your application of effort and not merely
>>the application of effort that produces the value.
> 
> 
>     Huh? What prior value are you talking about? The notion that if I
> planted a garden then the view would improve is somehow a value?
> 
>>>have the full right to try to contract for the value of that labor. But
> 
> I
> 
>>>might not get it.
> 
> 
>>I don't disagree that, in general if someone makes some
>>object that object should be theirs. ONe Qualifier is
>>if someone offers to pay some amount to have the person
>>make the item for them, then the person paying for
>>the labor get to claim the object produced and the
>>person performing the labor gets to claim the money
>>paid. Clearly there can be other qualifiers as well.
> 
> 
>     That's how laborers contract for the value of their labor. If all value
> is created by labor (as I argue it is), then all value is potentially
> contracted for. Thus there is no 'value from god' or 'value from nature'.
> All value is from human labor, though how much of the value created the
> laborer is able to secure for themself can vary from none to all of it.
> 
>     DS
> 
> 

Unless someone "values" the result of their labor they can work all day, 
without getting paid.  All value is in what someone is willing to 
exchange for the result.

Here, let's demonstrate preference in valuation. I am not breathing.  I 
hold my breath for a while.  At some point I decide that I'd rather not 
pass out.  So I take a breath.

Until I take that breath, I value not breathing more than I value 
breathing.  As soon as I breath, I have demonstrated a change in my 
valuations of breathing and not breathing.  When I value breathing more 
than not breathing I BREATHE!  How does labor enter into that basic 
demonstration of value through choice of action.  The value of that 
action is demonstrated logically.

Valuation is ordinal preference!  Not an empirical quantity.

Meaning that you have internally a hierarchy of preferences.  The most 
preferred thing is on top, and is currently being performed.  As soon as 
your preferences change, you change actions.  Preferences determine 
value.  They determine what action you are willing to take to achieve an 
outcome.  They determine PRICE!

Your labor can in fact be useless, no matter how hard you work.  But 
your preference always affects value.  Your work may or may not affect 
value.  But your preferences ALWAYS AFFECT VALUE!  So which is 
preeminent in the determination of value?  Labor or preference?

David S. Boyer

mangr3n@teamdekade.com