Talk:Subjective theory of value

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Should this be here? 2 Ayn Rand 3 The value of cigarettes 4 This is not about Ayn Rand

[edit] Should this be here?

Wouldn't this be better as a part of marginalism, or even the diamond-water paradox? - Anon

[edit] Ayn Rand

RJII: you should take a look at Ayn Rand's book Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. I tend to agree wit her that capitalism is based on what she calls the objective theory of value. Value is neither intrinsic alone, nor subjective alone. Items have certain properties; each individual has needs, and if those needs are satisfied by the properties of an object, that object will be valuable to that person.

For example, rocks are hard and heavy. To a meat eating caveman, a hard and heavy rock may become valuable as a weapon to him. On the other hand, to a gatherer, the rock might be valuable as a grindstone. But the rock can never satisfy other needs, like thirst, because that is a property that rocks cannot satisfy. So each item has built-in qualities (intrinsic properties), and each person subjectively decides if those properties can meet some of his needs.

Because the value of an item's properties can only be determined on an individual basis, the only system that works is free trade between individuals. No one can ever decide for you how much you should want an item. Only you can decide.

And that is what capitalism is based on :-)

Dullfig 05:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like it comes down to the same thing. The individual decides the value of a thing in its ability to benefit oneself. Wouldn't Rand agree that a value judgement is not a matter of objective right and wrong? It's just a matter of personal taste. Hence, it can't be rationally legislated. RJII 05:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

not quite. Complete subjectivity overlooks the fact that only certain objects can satisfy certain needs. No matter how much you want that rock to quench you thirst, it cant do it! When governments start thinking that needs are entirely subjective, you get things like campaigns to "re-educate" the population to not eat fast food, for example. It overlooks the fact that fast food may indeed have qualities (like low price, convenience and speed) that may meet the requirements of certain people. Dullfig 05:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. I'm not very familiar with Rand. I'll have to study up on that. RJII 05:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The value of cigarettes

Someone tried to make the point that Rand would have a hard time to justify the value of cigarettes, as if to make some kind of point. Cigarettes have intrinsic value (they contain nicotine). Some people like the effects of nicotine, which is what makes them valuable to the user. The price of the cigarettes is determined between the work required to make one, and how much the user is willing to pay for it. The fact that you don't like cigarettes does not mean they are without value. I don't smoke, by the way. The bottom line is: when people find use for an object, and therefore consider it valuable, there is always a reason behind it (in other words, a reasoned decision by the user), based on the intrinsic properties of the object. -- Dullfig 22:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is not about Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand's views on value are discussed in another article. She is not nearly notable enough as a critic of the subjective theory of value to be given her own section in this article. Please consult the wikipedia policy on undue weight. If person A has a view on issue X, and this view is a minority viewpoint, it should be covered in the article on person A rather than the article on issue X. In other words, Ayn Rand's views of the STV should be covered in an article that specifically deals with her views. I'll move the paragraph to objectivist theory of value. -- Nikodemos 09:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)