No because you cannot compare the value of money to the subjective utility value of a person. There is a reason why a starving man would value a steak over a corvette, despite the fact that the corvette cost more. It’s price was not a clear reflection of the man’s value.
Differences in monetary value are just additional factors of subjective valuation.
Fascinating. But I was illustrating that a price does not need money to arise.
Erm, no, it’s saying that if someone values the goats more than those 5 certificates the exchange will take place and the price will arise. Money does form a common denominator but it does not measure the value of anything.
Thank you, I was over simplifying and this explanation is very thorough and answers all my questions. So is it safe to say that Mises was being unsafe with his words, since you admitted there can be different value scales or (in the context of the chapter) was he saying that there is no inherent unit of value for marginal utility? The chapter was Economic Calculation.
Also… I’m not sure how to feel about that youtube video… or its accents.
Not the intrinsic (assuming such a thing exists) value but doesn’t it measure the amount that an individual is willing to give up for a certain good X and time Y?
No. That amount may be even higher. It’s merely a ratio of what actually was given up.
units of money are referred to when we state how many units of money someone had given up to purchase some good, so what?
It does not. It only measures how much the individual gave up (Past tense, historical data). It does not say how much he would have spent were the pricing structure different. So all it shows is that the person valued, at that time, a dinner plate more than his 5 dollars. It does not say quantitatvely how much more he valued the dinner over the 5 dollars. We cannot say he enjoyed the dinner plate 3 units of enjoyment greater then the 5 dollars without it being arbitrary.
We can only say that, at that time, he preferred the dinner plate to the 5 dollars. Now that his stomach is full he may prefer to keep the remaining 5 dollars in his wallet rather then trade it for desert.
It does not say by how much more or less he valued a from b. It just shows that at that time he did value Ax more than Bx where x is the quantity.
ha! i had no idea it had sound until now. Any how it was intended as a comic, just mute it and read it as you go. 
Okay so is it safe to say that there is no one unit of subjective use-value and that prices, in money, represent the market value of something?
What about the condition where the one unit of subjective use-value changes over time? Again what good then is the unit?
Prices are determined by the “marginal pairs” (the first excluded seller, the last capable buyer, and the first excluded buyer, and the last capable seller). The market brings actors, who have different subjective valuations, and maximizes pairs which are “capable of exchange,” and it does this by setting the “equilibrium price.” All buyers above the this equilibrium position (again, determined by marginal pairs) value the product more highly than the market price, and those below the equilibrium price, didn’t value it enough to take it from those who did. So prices cannot, in anyway, measure value, since the subjective valuations of every single actor (except those in the marginal pairs) are not reflected by the market price (they help determine the market price).
Subjectivist marginal utility merely implies (for the Austrians after Bohm-Bawerk) the desire to employ good X for various needs. I may want good X for activity a,b and c, and after c, I may no longer value it all (marginal utility entirely collapses). Thus, prices aren’t the “average measure of value” either, since each individual desires product X for different uses–both qualitatively and quantitatively. Prices are information signals which are continuously in flux (relaying information to market actors) and which ration scarce resources towards their most urgent employments.
This may sound confusing, since values determine prices, but prices do not measure value. But let me put it this way: physics tells us that space and time are intertwined and connected, that they are, in fact, the same thing–but try measuring time with a ruler.
Thank you for this, this is much more along the lines of an explanation I was looking for. And correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t Austrians believe in a shifting equilibrium price? Or one that is never constant? Preferences change every day as new people are born and other people die or new trends start and old trends fade, or a crop failure in Indonesia leads to a decreased supply elsewhere. I’m just trying to confirm, a one word “yes” or “No” (with an explanation if the need strikes you) is sufficient.
Thanks for all the info.
I’m not saying, inferring, or implying that it has a use merely that there exists a unit of subjective use-value for an individual at a certain time. It may change, but that still implies that it exists if its changing.