Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Slightly corrected quote...


Migeru has produced some interesting diaries about how you could establish a real relation between thermodynamics in the metaphoric sense of "state variables" and "non-state variables". I would urge you to read them.

Summing up.. purely monetary arguments are completely wrong in general, they do not reflect the present economy and the variables are not even properly defined.

Agreed, except that I think inherently "closed" "definitions" and dialectics have been the problem, and do not help in finding solutions.

That's why I felt I had to get to the Metaphysics and the assumptions underpinning Economics - because conventional Economics seemed to bear no relation to the Reality I experience.

My contention is that "Value" - whatever it is - lies, like Beauty, in the eye of the Beholder and is definable only in relative terms...

I like E C Riegel's definition of Value as the "Relativity of Desire".

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 04:11:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and you know I completely agree with your contention..absolutely..

I was pointing out that if a "value" of some kind or other monetary variables could be linked to a flux , it could quit this aurea of "beauty" style structure/concept.

I am not saying it is generally possible to do it. and I agree with you on that.. but I must say that some close or reductionist definition of those variables in certain conditions could be obtained. Or at least I see it possible. The problem is that no serious analysis is done..  not that I know.. the only thing that only comes close is the general analysis of international trade.. and even there when you have a bunch of possible definitions and a lot of data to construct it, well it turns out it is extremely difficult to quantify its effects on other parts of the economy. But in principle I could see a more fundamental economic theory where variables and fluxes do have to do with some economic realities (though only parcial)...

But the status of economic theory nowadays, except for some counting exception, is that it does not have any relation with Reality (as you like to say it).

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Mar 11th, 2008 at 04:53:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My contention is that "Value" - whatever it is - lies, like Beauty, in the eye of the Beholder and is definable only in relative terms...

To an extent. I would argue that while you are undoubtedly correct that it is nonsense to assign a universal value to such things as TVs or computers (I have no use for the former, and my grandmother has little use for the latter), there are a few things that have universal value: Shelter, clothes, food, water, air(!), heat, medicine, free time.

It seems a bit cavalier to deny the possibility of an absolute definition of value when millions are still without these very universally valuable goods.

Of course, if we define absolute value as only those items which are universally and indisputably valuable, and then try to maximise value, we would get a rather different notion of the ideal economic order.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Mar 12th, 2008 at 10:24:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series