Natural Resources

[Inquisitor]

Nathyn, please explain how something has a value outside of that which an agent assigns to it. You haven’t refuted what I said; you just pointed out that a good may have an instrumental value. So what? I already mentioned this. You still haven’t demonstrated the existence of objective value (i.e. value independent of the agent’s mental appreciation.)

Also, it’d help if you understood what Austrians actually claim regarding empirical studies (as opposed to empiricism-positivism.) Firstly, they might be used to illustrate theories; secondly, given that they are economic history, they may be used by firms in anticipating demand for their goods. Please show where an Austrian denied either of these uses.

Before claiming I did anything ‘poorly’ I’d recommend you actually make sure you understand what is being argued, else you’ll simply be uttering gibberish, which seems to be the norm so far.

Danny, my question for Nathyn is what sort of ‘objective’ value does gold have? If agents have no desire to incorporate it to satisfy one of their ends, in what way has it got any value? I’m not even making a claim regarding appropriation.

[Yan_Grenier]

@Donny with an A

Hahaha poooor Nathyn.

by almost everyone who has written on this subject in the past 4 centuries. The subjectivity of value does not in any way entail the position that you guys seem to be advancing, which is that objects only take on the quality of being useful once they are found to have that use by appropriating individuals. I know George Reisman thinks that, and it’s possible that Rothbard did too (I’m not sure). Locke basically put this issue on the map, and he agreed with Nathyn, and even Menger acknowledged that unowned natural resources are “useful objects” prior to attaining goods-character. I recognize that you guys may operate within the Rothbardian tradition (I’m pretty sure he believed that it was appropriation which conferred value to objects), but you have to realize that you’re representing the minority view, and that there are very good reasons for not holding that view. Particularly, go back and (re)read the section in chapter 7 of Anarchy, State, and Utopia entitled, “The Lockean Theory of Homesteading.”

See, this is where we are going to disagree. Objects have no use outside the one people find them to have. Objects don’t have an intrinsic value and use that a deity created in order for us to use in a certain way. If noone had to breathe, air would be useless. The fact that everyone has to breathe does not change the fact that if it was not required for us to exist to breathe, air would have no value to us outside other uses than breathing. Air has value and usefulness because we know (even if it done on a purely mechanical level) that we have to do the action of breathing in order to survive. We give air value and usefulness by showing it is valuable and useful by using it.

As for Nathyn: That he is agreeing with authors sometimes just goes to show that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[rtr]

Clarifying subjective value for some people. Trade only occurs because different people value the EXACT same good subjectively differently. That which is received is valued more than that which is given away in exchange. Thus, by observation of trade we deduce all value is subjective. If value were objective, no trade whatsoever would occur. Nobody would be better off from any trade. Thus, there would be no reason to trade, or no treason to stop from trading the same two goods back and forth ciruclarly for the time period of infinity. Although, the second circular infirinite back and forth trade of “equally valued goods” would not really occur as it would be wasting time and energy, making exchanges leaving both parties worse off then they were before the exchange, so it would be correct to state that if value were objective, no trade whatsoever would occur.

[sthomper]

" If noone had to breathe, air would be useless." doing my anerobic chores, air can then be useful for blowing leaves off of my driveway.

[JCFolsom]

@sthomper

" If noone had to breathe, air would be useless." doing my anerobic chores, air can then be useful for blowing leaves off of my driveway.

Not only that, but I personally prefer to not have my blood boil at room temperature

[Yan_Grenier]

@sthomper

" If noone had to breathe, air would be useless." doing my anerobic chores, air can then be useful for blowing leaves off of my driveway.

…that if it was not required for us to exist to breathe, air would have no value to us -->outside other uses than breathing<—

[newson]

@Nathyn

Let’s say, for instance, that I do not want pizzas, but I do want tacos.

Even if I don’t want pizzas, pizzas still have value to me in as much as they yield a market value that allow me to sell them and buy tacos.

Hence, even though we all want different things, market value is objective because it’s what determines how much we have to pay to get what we want, regardless of what we want.

To say value is totally subjective makes basic economic calculation impossible!

let’s look at a more liquid market than pizzas and tacos - the stock market. though there may be thousands of transactions in a particular stock in a short period of time, the ticker tape always only tells us what two parties agreed upon in the immediate past. at best, the last price is only an indication of what you can hope for if you sell at market. valuations change minute by minute according to the subjective views of the buyer and seller. only past prices are objective.

@Nathyn

How would an Austrian suggest running a business? Run outside and shout, “Hey, guys! What do you want?” Or just basically make a random business decision and hope it works? It throws the potential for all rational economic analysis out the window.

in my experience the hey-guys-what-do-you-want? is pretty close to the black art of market research. i regularly get nuisance callers asking me about toothpaste, telephone companies etc. in group brainstorming sessions, companies try and figure out what’s going on in joe six-pack’s mind.

if it’s someone starting out, they’re going to be sounding out trusted experts, maybe talking to potential clients, and then biting the bullet. set-up costs are much easier to quantify, and form the basis for any business plan, or capital raising. but as far as projected revenue goes, good luck! skill, timing, luck, diligence, capitalization, personality - every little bit helps, but it’s all essentially groping in the dark. 90% of small businesses fail, which shows how difficult this process is.

obviously it’s easier to get a feel for your chances if the business model is already tried and tested, but even the best corporate captains have to kill off many of their pet projects. if, by random, you mean uninformed decisions, you’re absolutely right. think of how many people retire from salaried positions and go straight into small business on a wing and a prayer.