< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Oct-27-12|| ||Infohunter: Well, <perfidious>, I see that, like me, you too stand in awe of the wisdom to which we have been treated on this page.|
|Oct-28-12|| ||Shams: <Infohunter> Oxygen is free and clean water cheap in much of the world. Surely you don't think those prices reflect the true value of oxygen and water? I recall what Oscar Wilde said about cynics.|
|Oct-28-12|| ||Infohunter: <Shams> Again, "price" is what a seller is asking for something he is selling; "value" is what someone thinks it's worth. The air we breathe is not an economic good at all; it is available to us free of charge. It therefore commands no *price* at all, but its *value* to us is quite something else again; everyone knows we could not live without it. Clean water is cheaply available (i.e., at a low *price*) in the civilized world because of massive capital investments over the years that have helped insure that it is safe for us to drink, and as easy to get as turning on a tap. The fact that it is obtainable to us at a low *price* does not mean that it does not have a high *value* to us.|
OK, so why do people pay either little or nothing for things without which they could not live, but $70.00 per hour for chess lessons, without which absolutely anyone's life can go on uninterrupted? This phenomenon is technically known as the "antinomy of value" (a term used by Ludwig von Mises in his *magnum opus* entitled *Human Action: A Treatise on Economics*). The only economic theory of value that I have ever known to resolve this seeming paradox is called the Marginal Utility Theory. It would be quite impractical to attempt to present that adequately in this forum, but if you would like to know what I am referring to I suggest you submit that term to an Internet search.
|Oct-28-12|| ||Shams: <Infohunter> <The fact that it is obtainable to us at a low *price* does not mean that it does not have a high *value* to us.>|
It seemed like you were arguing the opposite, but I may not have read too closely. I agree.
|Oct-28-12|| ||Infohunter: <Shams> As a matter of fact I was arguing|
(A) *against* the assertion that "knowledge has no monetary value." How anyone can hold such a view is beyond me.
(B) *against* the idea that each and every type of conceivable endeavor must have some arbitrary, pre-set "value" (Pre-set by whom? According to what standard?) that somehow must be "justified". (Justified to whom? Why?)
(C) *for* clearer understanding by eliminating the confusion of the terms "cost", "price" and "value" with one another.
On a happier note, I took a look at your profile page and was happy to learn that the 73-language chess page http://reocities.com/TimesSquare/me... has found a new home since geocities closed.
|Oct-28-12|| ||Conrad93: Infohunter must be be confusing the two senses of the term "worth." The fact that someone pays one hundred dollars for a chess teacher does not mean that the teacher is "worth" the price. The fact that he is "worth"that price because someone payed is not arguable.|
|Oct-28-12|| ||Conrad93: Worth: what something is valued by someone else.
Worth: it's actual merit or status.
|Oct-28-12|| ||Infohunter: <Conrad93: Infohunter must be be confusing the two senses of the term "worth." The fact that someone pays one hundred dollars for a chess teacher does not mean that the teacher is "worth" the price. The fact that he is "worth"that price because someone payed is not arguable.>|
The confusion lies with you, <Conrad93>. You are confusing *objective* use value (what something might be worth according to some abstract, preconceived standard) with *subjective* use value (what something is worth to a given individual in particular). It is the latter, not the former, whence market prices are derived. People do not make their purchasing choices on the basis of some abstract, preconceived standard; they make them on the basis of their own respective personal preferences and evaluations.
As I said before, the essentially synonymous terms "value" and "worth" do NOT exist in a vacuum. "Value" presupposes an evaluator; "worth" presupposes someone judging the thing in question.
|Oct-28-12|| ||OhioChessFan: Please don't feed the troll. Thanks.|
|Oct-29-12|| ||Conrad93: Infohunter, I am not discussing economics.|
|Oct-29-12|| ||Jim Bartle: I agree with Conrad93. Concepts such as "value" and "worth" and the price of goods and services have nothing to do with economics.|
(OCF: Sorry, just this once.)
|Oct-29-12|| ||Conrad93: At least you're not one-sided, Jim. Reason is not one way street.|
|Oct-29-12|| ||Conrad93: Why are we discussing philosophy on Garcia's page?
To get off topic: he looks sort of like an older Petrosian. Compare the two profiles.
|Oct-29-12|| ||nok: <I might buy a piece of ground for dirt cheap intending to grow food just to support myself and bang! I strike oil. Am I in that case not entitled to the oil profits just because I didn't work hard to get them?>|
In that case, yes, but that case is against the odds. You have to look at the statistical picture. If oil was routinely found in dirt it would be quite cheaper.
|Oct-29-12|| ||Conrad93: Nok, according to him, oil's price is based simply on what someone pays for it. |
It's value is not based on its worth and benefit to society.
|Oct-29-12|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: I thought use value and exchange value - the two sides of the commodity in the capitalist mode of production - had been dealt with back in Karl Marx's day ("Das Kapital"). Old "Charlie" went on to discuss the commodity labour power as the source of value, socially necessary labour, the average rate of profit, the origin of economic crises, etc, etc.|
Only modern day heathens in economic departments work with a theory of prices instead of a labour theory of value.
Anyway, this is a player profile....
|Oct-29-12|| ||Conrad93: Simon, we weren't discussing economics.|
|Oct-29-12|| ||perfidious: <Simon> et al: bring it over to my forum; I'll even take <Conrad93> off ignore so that we can enjoy the fruits of his immense wisdom.|
|Oct-29-12|| ||Conrad93: This wouldn't qualify as wisdom. It would be considered knowledge.|
|Oct-29-12|| ||brankat: Common sense in an uncommon degree is what people call wisdom.|
<..off ignore so that we can enjoy the fruits of his immense wisdom.>
Also, laughter is beneficial to one's health :-)
|Oct-29-12|| ||Conrad93: What we were discussing involved knowledge, not wisdom. Knowledge tells me the facts, wisdom tells me to stop arguing online.|
|Oct-30-12|| ||Infohunter: <OhioChessFan: Please don't feed the troll. Thanks.>|
Looks as though that ended up being everyone else's cue to come out of the woodwork.
|Oct-30-12|| ||Conrad93: Infohunter, do you know what defines a troll, or has it just became another insult? I'm not trolling.|
|Oct-30-12|| ||Infohunter: *I* never said you were a troll, <Conrad>, as you will see if you scroll back through my comments. My latest comment, please note, was an observation on the irony of what took place after <OCF> made his request. You are being needlessly defensive here.|
|Nov-01-12|| ||brankat: <conrad93> <I'm not trolling.>|
You are not "learning" either. Neither are You "educating" others. Nor are You exchanging thoughts/ideas. You have not had one single constructive discussion with anyone ever since you joined the site.
So. what exactly are you doing here?
You ARE trolling.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·