Talk:Paradox of value/Archives/2018

Is that it?
This seems a bit fishy to me, was marginalism really the ultimate solution to this particular paradox? There wasn't really a common "use" for diamonds back then (other than maybe as jewelry), was there? So how does marginalism answer anything here? Seems to me like diamonds were valuable because they fulfill many of the requirements for a medium of exchange (mainly recognisability and resistance to counterfeiting), in addition to being scarce, so the explanation would be closer to that of why fiat money is valuable. I'm out of my element here, it just really seems to me like this can't be the full answer. --92.211.110.4 (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, there. Don't expect any response here if you were looking to discuss the topic of the page.  These "Talk:" pages are for discussing complaints you have with the way the article is written, or whether something should've been put there or not; people won't respond to discuss the topic itself or to answer questions.  I'm sure there are forum websites out there for burgeoning economists to discuss concept and theory. — JamesEG (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Bread and Water
Is there a reason why the diamond–water form of the paradox is used solely here and on other pages e.g. Subjective_theory_of_value? If there is no legitimate reason besides simplicity, then I will include brief mention here of the gold–bread and jade–bread, with citations of where they are mentioned. Justification is that it will help visibility — though I have no measurements of search terms with which to support that. Of course, it would've been helpful if it were originally publicised as jade–water, because it seems to me that there you have the largest disparity of utility — alas, whatever. Temporal inconvenience. — JamesEG (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)