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.