Talk:Subjective theory of value/Archives/2012

Criticisms Section
The arguments in the "criticism" section, responding to the actual quoted arguments, are entirely inappropriate. The Criticisms section is not meant as an avenue of debate. It is only there to list criticisms of the theory. It also sounds like the author is taking a stand on the labor vs. subjective value debate, which is not what Wikipedia is for. His criticisms of the LTV also come from a misunderstanding (twelve hours to manufacture a car?) but that's besides the point that the criticisms section has been misused in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.62.54 (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The arguments in the criticism section are not serious or high profile enough to have their place on this page. --Melt core (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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)
 * Rand Just had a knee-jerk reaction to the word "subjective", thinking it means something in this context that it does not mean. Her "objective" value theory is the subjective theory of value, she just added some observations about how those subjective values are formed.  She's right, but it doesn't change the SVT.

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)

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)

"enough"?
"There are not enough of them, or just enough of them, to satisfy demand."

Is it not sufficient to say that supply is finite with respect to demand, being as demand is effected by price, and thus supply vicariously. This sentence seems to imply that demand is static and that supply needs to be equal to or less than it in order for the item to have value. thoughts? &mdash;Memotype:: T 22:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

political implications
I'm removing the entire section "political implications" (see diff) because it is mostly original research. As near as I can tell, it makes an over-strong argument for what believers in subjective utility would say about government action in the economy. (As near as I can tell, the vast majority of economists are believers in subjective valuation, but many also support government interventions.) Possibly with more careful re-phrasing and references the section could return. The most recent addition to the section "Additionally, all price controls (both ceilings and floors) reduce the quantities traded, wiping out the wealth that would otherwise be created by mutually agreed-upon arrangements." does provide a reference, but both the statement and the reference seem a bit too removed from the material in the article--the reference doesn't mention subjective theory of value, and why concentrate on price floors/ceilings in such a way in any case? C RETOG 8(t/c) 07:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

rm merge proposition
as no one seems to support this proposition (see: Theory of value (economics)), I removed it. Dick Bos (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)