The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: I apologize...

(See in situ)

I apologize...

for trying to characterize your motives. I shouldn't have done that. I let my frustrations over this issue, that I've been countering for decades, get the best of me. :p

The real problem is the words and terms used to describe the concepts are inadequate and need to be innovated and replaced.

People choose prices for all kinds of wacky and unpredictable reasons (praxeology) but at the same time various substances and objects have unique innate and intrinsic properties that make them uniquely, and often exclusively, useful as opposed to other substances and objects... :\

I always prefer starting word studies with Webster's 1828. In Webster's 1828 the definition of value is:

The first or primary definition recognizes both the objective (usefulness in a commodity sense) and subjective components with an emphasis on the objective. The second definition focuses exclusively on the price. Modern dictionaries, especially economic ones, deemphasize the usefulness in favor of price.

I think this is the root of confusion. Maybe the solution is to strongly separate the terms "value" and "usefulness" but I'm not sure that can be carried to the "street" because the homeys tend to use the word "value" or "valuable" to mean usefulness as often as they use it to mean commanding a good price. :p

At any rate, googling "menger objective components" yields a quick introduction to Menger's objective/subjective breakdown of value...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~