Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How is the market regulated?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

"A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved.... A trader does not expect to be paid for defaults, only for his achievements." -Rand

If that means anything.

What Spiral means by "deserves" is the definition that you (and far too many other people) have used. You use it as a floating abstraction to refer to some sort of mystical judgement of how an individual's actions have contributed to a non-existent black box.

You say: "They would get a lot of money but do they deserve it? Even though they worked for it, aren't they making more than should have?"

Deserve it by what criteria? How much work is enough? Who decides how much is enough? How much should one have? Who decides that? How are work, deserts, and benefits quantified and calculated? These are non-existent criteria for an invalid concept.

Edited by Dormin111
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deserve it by what criteria? How much work is enough? Who decides how much is enough? How much should one have? Who decides that? How are work, deserts, and benefits quantified and calculated? These are non-existent criteria for an invalid concept.

I don't how much is enough. The point of this whole thread is to find that out. But I do know that it exists: (quoting myself)

A trade is only fair when it is balanced. Any trade where one gains [by money] more than he offers is theft [The owner (and you) would be a thief for carrying out an obviously unjust, so called, trade]. Thus there exists an objectively defined price following which a trade won't be a theft. The question is not whether or not it exists or whether it is objective. It is not I who deem the value fair. A fair value exists and anything out of it is theft [and you are the thief if you support a thief's moral code]. This brings me back it my original question : how do you determine this value? or to quote myself : "Basically how is the money value for work determined?". Sure you can't have a beam balance to determine it but the "fair price" exists, nevertheless.

Another question : since you must have read the above quote before making your comment, how did you come to the conclusion that "You use it as a floating abstraction to refer to some sort of mystical judgement of how an individual's actions have contributed to a non-existent black box." Or are you suggesting that different prices for the same amount of work is always balanced? If so, justify how that is objective and not arbitrary/mystical. Before making claims ["You use it as a floating abstraction to refer to some sort of mystical judgement of how an individual's actions have contributed to a non-existent black box."], back it up first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I trade my widget to Dormin for $1.00, that's balanced.

If I trade another identical widget to Spiral for $2.00, that's also balanced.

It's balanced because while the widget itself has objective value, only Dormin, Spiral and I each individually know the relative value that the widget has to us. We each determine - or rank - the widget objectively against our other values to conclude at what level trade is acceptable, and at what level trade for a widget is not worth it.

The arbitrary is introduced when you, human_murda, declare that the value of Widget is X and thus everyone must trade Widget at that level. You are not able to rank our values for us, so you are not able to judge for us what value the widget should have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't how much is enough. The point of this whole thread is to find that out. But I do know that it exists: (quoting myself)

Another question : since you must have read the above quote before making your comment, how did you come to the conclusion that "You use it as a floating abstraction to refer to some sort of mystical judgement of how an individual's actions have contributed to a non-existent black box." Or are you suggesting that different prices for the same amount of work is always balanced? If so, justify how that is objective and not arbitrary/mystical. Before making claims ["You use it as a floating abstraction to refer to some sort of mystical judgement of how an individual's actions have contributed to a non-existent black box."], back it up first.

I concur with Greebo. Economic valuation is subjectively determined by individuals according to their own preferences. A trade is "balanced" as long as it is voluntarily agreed upon out of mutual self-interest. A trade is unbalnced if it is not conducted because one or both parties felt that the sacrifice of their wealth was not worth the return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's balanced because while the widget itself has objective value, only Dormin, Spiral and I each individually know the relative value that the widget has to us. We each

So you're saying that value for the same product is variable [but the money-equivalent for a particular value is fixed]. You are saying that a house should cost more to a poor guy [as the relative value is more for him] than a rich guy [basically trying to make off with as much as you can since nobody's stopping you. Again you are abusing the power that you have due to the buyer's disadvantage]. But you do realize that value is defined by your work and not on the buyer's needs ["A trader does not expect to be paid for defaults, only for his achievements."]. There is another common application for this too : online shopping, where a product has the same fixed price [so the price has to be determined objectively and not on "relative" values]. Frankly I think your "relative value" is mystical [you are welcome to prove otherwise]. Also the same thing having different values is a contradiction of "A is A" principle and therefore, too arbitrary and not objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you do realize that value is defined by your work and not on the buyer's needs
No, value is not determined by what went into something. Someone might work real hard and produce crap.

P.S.: The notion that value is to be determined by what went in to something is known as the "Labor Theory of Value". It's most famous proponents were Adam Smith and Karl Marx.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're saying that value for the same product is variable [but the money-equivalent for a particular value is fixed].

Sorry, I'm not following you. Please clarify the meaning of your terms, as my reading of this statement renders it nonsensical.

You are saying that a house should cost more to a poor guy [as the relative value is more for him] than a rich guy

How do you know the relative value of a house to someone based on their curent economic status?

[basically trying to make off with as much as you can since nobody's stopping you. Again you are abusing the power that you have due to the buyer's disadvantage].

What is the nature of that disadvantage? How was this disadvantage achieved?

But you do realize that value is defined by your work and not on the buyer's needs ["A trader does not expect to be paid for defaults, only for his achievements."].

You understand that achievement and work are not the same thing?

There is another common application for this too : online shopping, where a product has the same fixed price [so the price has to be determined objectively and not on "relative" values]. Frankly I think your "relative value" is mystical [you are welcome to prove otherwise].

You do not understand the relative value concept.

A value is that which one acts to gain or keep. As Rand pointed out, the concept of value is not a primary concept - to be a value means it is of value to someone, for something. To whom and for what are the questions that determine the *market* value of that thing.

To Dormin, the market (or "relative") value of the widget is $1.00. If the widget can only be obtained for $2.00, then Dormin will not buy it, because it is not of sufficient value to him for his purposes to make that trade. Spiral, on the other hand, will, because for spiral and his purposes, the market value of the widget *is* $2.00.

Also the same thing having different values is a contradiction of "A is A" principle and therefore, too arbitrary and not objective.

No, it isn't, because value presupposes "of value to someone for something".

The term I used before - "objective value" - is probably confusing. I said that the widget has objective value. This is true - but this is not to say that the widget *is* the value. If the widget were removed to some far corner of the universe, never to be reacquired, it would be of no value to anyone. All the gold and platinum in the asteroiod belt is worthless if we cannot make use of it. The objective value of the widget in the context above is simply stating that the widget does have some value to someone for something - therefore it is *a* value - something someone will act to gain and/or keep.

The widget above has objective value to both Dormin and Spiral - but how much value to each varies, thus the market value to each of them is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greebo,

What he is saying is that you are unfairly abusing me by selling me a $2.00 widget. Evidently I am a mindless moron who is forced to buy it against my will, and worse someone else predetermines the value for me and that someone (anyone else but me since I have no say in the matter) needs to reveal this value to all parties and force you to sell it to me at that price. What I value or want is not important. There is not freedom of association let alone trade since everything is predetermined and it’s the moral duty of the seller to ask others for the revelation of that value and charge it to helpless people like me. It’s good to know I have no say in the issue and can now stop thinking about my purchases. The Government will protect me from having to think like an adult you.

Now that has been revealed that I have no say in what I want, I duly expect a refund of the $1.00 I was cheated to be sent to SpiralArchetiect@I_am_a_victim.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the widget were removed to some far corner of the universe, never to be reacquired, it would be of no value to anyone.

But that is only because acquiring it is beyond your control and anything beyond your control is outside morality. Assuming you could acquire it, then it would have an objective value (independent of the person going after it). The use that a product can be put to is the same for different people (and is only dependent on the nature of the product) assuming their goals are the same but "reason" ensures that it is.

How do you know the relative value of a house to someone based on their curent economic status?

Assuming the poor guy doesn't have a house and the rich guy does [some rich guys do have several houses.

Sorry, I'm not following you. Please clarify the meaning of your terms, as my reading of this statement renders it nonsensical.

I meant that you accepted that if a value of a product is set it is not upto you to decide the price (as you have accepted that trade is balanced for a fixed price for a particular value, which is not decided by the seller).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greebo,

What he is saying is that you are unfairly abusing me by selling me a $2.00 widget. Evidently I am a mindless moron who is forced to buy it against my will, and worse someone else predetermines the value for me and that someone (anyone else but me since I have no say in the matter) needs to reveal this value to all parties and force you to sell it to me at that price. What I value or want is not important. There is not freedom of association let alone trade since everything is predetermined and it’s the moral duty of the seller to ask others for the revelation of that value and charge it to helpless people like me. It’s good to know I have no say in the issue and can now stop thinking about my purchases. The Government will protect me from having to think like an adult you.

Now that has been revealed that I have no say in what I want, I duly expect a refund of the $1.00 I was cheated to be sent to SpiralArchetiect@I_am_a_victim.com.

Weren't you the one advocating civility in forums? You evidently don't understand my argument. You enjoy being a victim don't you? You don't understand the difference between thinking and identifying OR whims and values OR objectivity and subjectivity. Worse, you need to side up with someone to prove your point [you are not even trying to make an argument but just a compilation of false claims]. I wonder how you, Greebo, would respond to this post.

For any moderators out there : i hope you understand that the only difference btw. mine and Spiral's post is that he was sarcastic while I was straight forward.

The notion that value is to be determined by what went in to something is known as the "Labor Theory of Value". It's most famous proponents were Adam Smith and Karl Marx.

This is exactly what I am suggesting, I'll look into it. (Why didn't someone suggest me this some 30 posts before?) This thread is getting too long. "It's most famous proponents were Adam Smith and Karl Marx" : hopefully that's not as bad an omen as it sounds.

Edited by human_murda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that is only because acquiring it is beyond your control and anything beyond your control is outside morality.

Thank you for supporting my point. Values are values only if they are of value to someone, for something.

Assuming you could acquire it, then it would have an objective value (independent of the person going after it). The use that a product can be put to is the same for different people (and is only dependent on the nature of the product) assuming their goals are the same but "reason" ensures that it is.

Yes, the same product can be used the same way by different people. How it can be used, however, does not determine the value of the thing to the person using it. How it WILL be used by that person does.

Assuming the poor guy doesn't have a house and the rich guy does [some rich guys do have several houses.

Quite an assumption.

Now without those assumptions answer my question.

I meant that you accepted that if a value of a product is set it is not upto you to decide the price (as you have accepted that trade is balanced for a fixed price for a particular value, which is not decided by the seller).

So the seller should not be allowed to sell his widget for less than another seller?

Why have you evaded these questions:

"What is the nature of that disadvantage? How was this disadvantage achieved?"

"You understand that achievement and work are not the same thing?"

And why have you seemingly ignored the rest of my post?

If Dormin uses my widget to replace a broken part in his car, while Spiral uses my widget to invent a new machine which will cumulatively save billions of hours for everyone, which widget was of more value?

Edited by Greebo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weren't you the one advocating civility in forums? You evidently don't understand my argument. You enjoy being a victim don't you? You don't understand the difference between thinking and identifying OR whims and values OR objectivity and subjectivity. Worse, you need to side up with someone to prove your point [you are not even trying to make an argument but just a compilation of false claims]. I wonder how you, Greebo, would respond to this post.

Spiral is saying that he is NOT a victim if he agrees to pay $2.00 for a widget that Dormin pays $1.00 for.

I think you should avoid the accusation towards others regarding false claims when you don't seem to want to support your own.

For any moderators out there : i hope you understand that the only difference btw. mine and Spiral's post is that he was sarcastic while I was straight forward.

First you were going to delete your account and never come back. Now you want the moderators to intervene on your behalf?

]This is exactly what I am suggesting, I'll look into it. (Why didn't someone suggest me this some 30 posts before?) This thread is getting too long. "It's most famous proponents were Adam Smith and Karl Marx" : hopefully that's not as bad an omen as it sounds.

This thread is getting too long?

Why? Does it being long highlight your inability / unwillingness to defend your assertions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I say good-bye to all I would like to say one more thing : (To everyone:) You people exaggerate your rights. Pull down your egos and stop pretending that every great thing in history is associated with you (This was actually a problem with Rand and she got blinded by it, especially with the capitalism she promoted, which had lots of flaws which she overlooked. This process becomes almost unnoticeable when people start congregating. So maintaining a forum could actually contribute to this. This has been the problem with every culture in history and I am afraid 'Objectivism' is becoming more and more of a culture [and don't pretend you are free from the ill-effects of culture]). Every one of you need to learn the difference between freedom and power (and freedom can never be abused but power can. Abusing power is not your right). I've been browsing the internet and observe the same trends (and it is only due to fear). I'll rejoin the forum when people actually man up [and not just pretend to be].

So there's one final thing to do : how do I delete my account?

For the record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Dormin uses my widget to replace a broken part in his car, while Spiral uses my widget to invent a new machine which will cumulatively save billions of hours for everyone, which widget was of more value?

The value of the widget does not change. The new machine was not produced by the widget but your mind, your intellect which did the work. "How it can be used" depends on the nature of the product. "How it WILL be used" depends on your ability/capability, which is what gives value to a product.

Quite an assumption.

Not really [this was what I had in mind. I thought you would make the association that a poor guy doesn't own a house while the rich guy did]. Now explain "relative values".

Thank you for supporting my point.

I wasn't. I meant that existence of people makes value exist. But how much a product has value for people is decided by its nature. Assuming its nature doesn't keep on changing, its value is fixed.

So the seller should not be allowed to sell his widget for less than another seller?

He can do whatever. It's just immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The value of the widget does not change. The new machine was not produced by the widget but your mind, your intellect which did the work. "How it can be used" depends on the nature of the product. "How it WILL be used" depends on your ability/capability, which is what gives value to a product.

Of what value is a transistor to a cave man?

Not really [this was what I had in mind. I thought you would make the association that a poor guy doesn't own a house while the rich guy did]. Now explain "relative values".

Reality disagrees with your basic assumption. One can quite easily produce a virtually boundless list of people who have houses who are dead broke and not getting any wealthier. All one needs to do is examine their debt to asset levels and expense to income ratios.

I wasn't. I meant that existence of people makes value exist. But how much a product has value for people is decided by its nature. Assuming its nature doesn't keep on changing, its value is fixed.

So to your way of thinking, a value exists whether or not someone can make use of it? Then in that case the space widget has the same value as the earth bound widget.

He can do whatever. It's just immoral.

Why? If the seller chooses freely and the buyer chooses freely, what makes it immoral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spiral is saying that he is NOT a victim

Yep [initially. But it turned to sarcasm quite quickly and by the end he was laughing at my stupidity for thinking he is a victim]. The problem is that he is a victim and is praising himself for it [and he aimed that comment at me for not understanding that he wasn't a victim which I believe he is. "Now that has been revealed that I have no say in what I want, I duly expect a refund of the $1.00 I was cheated to be sent to SpiralArchetiect@I_am_a_victim.com"]

For the record.

For the record, I said that because I realized you aren't as objective as you claimed [i couldn't stand being a victim of blatant subjectivity]. Now, this doesn't matter to me anymore as I realized that I was actually not an Objectivist. So your mockery of Objectivism is irrelevant to me now. This is what made me reply [if you care].

This thread is getting too long?

Why? Does it being long highlight your inability / unwillingness to defend your assertions?

(1) I've already found an answer which can preoccupy me for a while : "Labor Theory of Value"

(2) You're really not considering my view of the argument. Eg: you concluded that I was supporting your argument when I said "But that is only because acquiring it is beyond your control and anything beyond your control is outside morality". Your logic is limited by what you have already taken for granted.

First you were going to delete your account and never come back.

True

Now you want the moderators to intervene on your behalf?

False. I just wanted to make sure they don't make any false assumptions [sarcastic comments are easily neglected, but straight forward comments aren't]. The judgement is upto them but can question their validity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep [initially. But it turned to sarcasm quite quickly and by the end he was laughing at my stupidity for thinking he is a victim].

A sentiment I share.

The problem is that he is a victim and is praising himself for it

I find it interesting that you think it is up to you to judge whether he is a victim when he asserts that he is not.

Are you saying that his free will in the matter is irrelevant?

For the record, I said that because I realized you aren't as objective as you claimed [i couldn't stand being a victim of blatant subjectivity]. Now, this doesn't matter to me anymore as I realized that I was actually not an Objectivist. So your mockery of Objectivism is irrelevant to me now. This is what made me reply [if you care].

I find it amusing that you accuse me of mocking Objecitivism when it becomes increasingly apparent that you are anything but an Objectivist, not at all interested in actually undertanding Objectivism, and are only participating here in order to assert your own premises, as opposed to what the actual intent of this forum is, which is to ask questions about the philosophy, not challenge it.

(1) I've already found an answer which can preoccupy me for a while : "Labor Theory of Value"

(2) You're really not considering my view of the argument. Eg: you concluded that I was supporting your argument when I said "But that is only because acquiring it is beyond your control and anything beyond your control is outside morality". Your logic is limited by what you have already taken for granted.

You've already stated that you think it's appropraite to use force to assert YOUR view. I see no need to consider it further. Quite simply, if someone like you tried to assert your will upon me in such a manner in my own place of business, at the least I would simply evict you. If that didn't work, I might have to kill you (meeting your force with force), since you seem to be pretty content with being a threat to my own freedom.

Edited by Greebo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of what value is a transistor to a cave man?

Who made this transistor?

Why? If the seller chooses freely and the buyer chooses freely, what makes it immoral?

imbalance, a looter-victim relationship.

So to your way of thinking, a value exists whether or not someone can make use of it?

Nope : A value cannot exist without someone to create it and where there is someone to create it, there is someone to use it

Edited by human_murda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who made this transistor?

Someone from a Capitalist nation, introducing it to a tribe in the Amazon.

imbalance, a looter-victim relationship.

What imbalance?

Nope : A value cannot exist someone to create and where there is someone to create it, there is someone to use it

So a value is a value TO someone, FOR something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that his free will in the matter is irrelevant?

He was just parroting the majority [here]. His conclusion was not based on free will.

I find it amusing that you accuse me of mocking Objecitivism when it becomes increasingly apparent that you are anything but an Objectivist, not at all interested in actually undertanding Objectivism, and are only participating here in order to assert your own premises, as opposed to what the actual intent of this forum is, which is to ask questions about the philosophy, not challenge it.

Just because I think Objectivism is wrong in some aspects doesn't mean that I understand it any less. And why can't I challenge it?

You've already stated that you think it's appropraite to use force to assert YOUR view.

I've already stated that I think it's appropriate to use force to do what is RIGHT [i've already stated the reasons why I think I am right : deserving, balancing, etc].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of what value is a transistor to a cave man?

He doesn't have to value it or buy it [since he doesn't need it]. But the transistor still has value. For example, the cave man can acquire knowledge about how to use it and then use it. So if he wants to buy it, he still has to pay the price for it.

So a value is a value TO someone, FOR something?

A value "exists" TO someone, FOR something. But its magnitude is determined by its inherent quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was just parroting the majority [here]. His conclusion was not based on free will.

That's amazing. How do you reach that conclusion? How do you know that he hasn't measured and evaluated every tenet of O'ism and decided on his own that he agrees with it?

Just because I think Objectivism is wrong in some aspects doesn't mean that I understand it any less. And why can't I challenge it?

Because this forum is private property and has rules.

I've already stated that I think it's appropriate to use force to do what is RIGHT [i've already stated the reasons why I think I am right : deserving, balancing, etc].

And I think I'm right to kill you if you come into my place of business, or my home for that matter, and try to force your way of living upon me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He doesn't have to value it or buy it [since he doesn't need it]. But the transistor still has value. For example, the cave man can acquire knowledge about how to use it and then use it. So if he wants to buy it, he still has to pay the price for it.

That wasn't my question. my question was, OF WHAT VALUE IS A TRANSISTOR TO A PRIMITIVE TRIBE MEMBER?

A value "exists" TO someone, FOR something. But its magnitude is determined by its inherent quality.

How is that inherent quality assessed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I say good-bye to all I would like to say one more thing : (To everyone:) You people exaggerate your rights. Pull down your egos and stop pretending that every great thing in history is associated with you .... ... So there's one final thing to do : how do I delete my account?
And yet you keep posting :)

Speaking of "man up", why not man up by walking away? It's 10 days since you posted this, so either you think you were wrong and that you're actually dealing with reasonable folk; or, if you still think you're wasting your time, then...

... oh, i get it... because you;re putting effort into this, it must be value... i.e. labor theory of value.

I'm going to lock this thread to help you with your addiction. Sometimes you just have to walk away cold-turkey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...