I am looking for formal arguments for the Subjective Theory of Value. Doing a search on this site, I found this:
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/blogs/lilburne/archive/2009/06/19/224245.aspx
So that’s one. I was wondering if you guys knew of others.
I am not here to engage people in a debate, I just want references. If you refer a book, make it one that’s available on here or elsewhere, with a chapter number. (my reading list is already long enough as it is)
I’m guessing you did not use google to search this site. If, in google, you type in “site:mises.org Subjective Theory of Value” [without the quotes] you will get plenty of stuff, including the section from Mises’ book.
I already did a search on this site. I assume you mean this?
This is not an argument, it’s a description. I already understand STV and do not need further descriptions.
For an actual critique, of Ricardian value theory, you might want to look at Samuel Bailey’s critical dissertation. It’s for free to download from Google books, I can’t give chapters, since I’ve only read a bit of the preface, which is long enough on its own! Nevertheless, it might be along the lines of what you’re looking for, though as a note of caution I don’t think it expounds a fully developed Mengerian marginal value theory, and of course could be considered a little “dated”(not sure how important that is since the intellectual oppoinents of liberals and Austrians tend to just reinvent old fallacies anyway).
Issues 2 and 3 of my Human Action Comics are also relevant.
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/blogs/lilburne/archive/2009/06/19/224245.aspx
I already posted that in the opening post.
and The Labor Theory of Value is absurd and impossible - #20 by ziragt
I’m looking for serious academic arguments. This is just one’s guy’s straw men of LTV.
This is basically the Bastiat argument that I already posted, his Robinson Crusoe example. Already got it.
Rothbard, Man, Economy & State
It is important to realize that there is never any possibility of measuring increases or decreases in happiness or satisfaction. Not only is it impossible to measure or compare changes in the satisfaction of different people; it is not possible to measure changes in the happiness of any given person. In order for any measurement to be possible, there must be an eternally fixed and objectively given unit with which other units may be compared. There is no such objective unit in the field of human valuation. The individual must determine subjectively for himself whether he is better or worse off as a result of any change. His preference can only be expressed in terms of simple choice, or rank. Thus, he can say, “I am better off” or “I am happier” because he went to a concert instead of playing bridge (or “I will be better off” for going to the concert), but it would be completely meaningless for him to try to assign units to his preference and say, “I am two and a half times happier because of this choice than I would have been playing bridge.” Two and a half times what? There is no possible unit of happiness that can be used for purposes of comparison and, hence, of addition or multiplication. Thus, values cannot be measured; values or utilities cannot be added, subtracted, or multiplied. They can only be ranked as better or worse. A man may know that he is or will be happier or less happy, but not by “how much,” not by a measurable quantity.17
David Gordon - An Introduction to Economic Reasoning
We have different goals. How do we choose between them?
Should I now move from Point A to Point B, eat a gallon of ice
cream, or toss this book out the window, assuming that I would like
to do all three? The time available, we assume, allows me to do only
one.
The answer, I’m afraid, sounds trivially obvious. You rank the
goals: which, of the three, would you most like to obtain? (Guess
which one I would pick!) Having done so, you act to achieve your
most highly-valued goal.
As usual, we have to avoid a false step. We are not saying this:
you measure the goals on a numerical scale of satisfaction, and then
pick the one that scores highest. Eating ice cream gives ten units of
satisfaction, while tossing the book out the window rates only a
three. (Moving to Point B is only slightly above the vanishing
point.) This approach, measuring the goals on a scale of satisfac-
tion, and picking the top scorer, is our old friend psychological
hedonism. This is a speculative theory whose truth we do not
assume in Austrian economics.
But if we rule out measurement on a scale, how can we rank our
goals? Easy: we do it as follows: first goal, second goal, . . . etc. We
use an ordinal, rather than a cardinal ranking. Compare the follow-
ing: Mount Everest is taller than Mont Blanc, which is taller than
the Hollywood Hills (ordinal ranking). Mount Everest stands x feet
tall. Mont Blanc stands y feet
tall (cardinal ranking). This
should make the distinction
clear.In this connection, the
British economist Lord Lionel
Robbins compared utility to love.
You can usually tell whether you
love one person more than
another, but you can’t measure
“how much” in definable units.
Now, we know what kind of
ranking we are looking for. But
what determines how the goals
rank? Which goal ranks first?
The answer may prove a disap-
pointment to those in search of
complicated theory: the actor
himself decides which goal he
ranks highest. He is the one who acts, after all; what counts in the
explanation of what he does is his personal rank order of goals. In
economics, preferences are subjective.
It’s very easy to argument about STV since it’s easy to propose tons of examples from our daily lives.
Yea, that’s great, but I haven’t come here to argue. All I want is references to arguments, preferably something more academic than some guy on the Mises.org board (not talking about you, but about the link someone posted before).
Can you point me to a specific section?
Maybe you could start from chapter 4 and go onwards
Yea… no. Sorry, but I’m not gonna slog through half a Mises book for this.
Maybe this: http://mises.org/austecon/chap4.asp
it’s only 10 pages
Someone already linked me that on this thread, and I already answered. It’s a description, not an argument.
“Yea… no. Sorry, but I’m not gonna slog through half a Mises book for this.”
So you don’t want to read books? Then, how are you going to learn.
Bohm-Bawerk: ‘Believe in objective theory of value? But in that case, give me a reason why strawberries are better than oranges, in terms of their value in thermal units…’
Value is subjective, it’s a property of the concept of value, it seems like you want an argument to justify gravity. It is like it is, you seem to be searching for a justification, almost an excuse for value being subjective.
Yes, well. I already said I was not going to argue, and that I was not going to read whole books.
Besides, since STV is THE theoretical foundation of capitalist economics, one would think it would be easy for you guys to point me to a convenient list or page about them. I looked for LTV arguments and found a detailed list of arguments in like two minutes. I’ve been looking for STV arguments for days now.