Thank you for your comments. Those are all really good points and they inspired me with several new points that I need to think about:
Value of something has objective (but not constant) components and high dimensional.
A new questions is: Can there be a universal/fundamental component for the value notion such that we can use an equation like this: value of something = universal component + objective component to represent value notion?
Regarding your last point, I can’t help but think that when different people have different valuations for the same thing because of the human irrationality, what does that really imply? Does it imply there is a universal value notion for (some) things and people are bad at predicting that or there is no universal notion and people should have different valuations?
I’m not sure I agree that there’s any objective utility to any component of this. For relatively liquid markets, there is an objective exchange value at any given instant, but it’s based on the relative values of the things being traded.
I also oversimplified when I said the individual variance in valuation was irrational. There’s LOTS of rational variance—some people don’t like coffee, and most people don’t need 50 cups of it all at once.
Ain’t nothing here that’s objective nor constant. Differing relative marginal value is it. Without that, there’s no exchange, and no value to think about.
Thank you for your comments. Those are all really good points and they inspired me with several new points that I need to think about:
Value of something has objective (but not constant) components and high dimensional.
A new questions is: Can there be a universal/fundamental component for the value notion such that we can use an equation like this: value of something = universal component + objective component to represent value notion?
Regarding your last point, I can’t help but think that when different people have different valuations for the same thing because of the human irrationality, what does that really imply? Does it imply there is a universal value notion for (some) things and people are bad at predicting that or there is no universal notion and people should have different valuations?
I’m not sure I agree that there’s any objective utility to any component of this. For relatively liquid markets, there is an objective exchange value at any given instant, but it’s based on the relative values of the things being traded.
I also oversimplified when I said the individual variance in valuation was irrational. There’s LOTS of rational variance—some people don’t like coffee, and most people don’t need 50 cups of it all at once.
Ain’t nothing here that’s objective nor constant. Differing relative marginal value is it. Without that, there’s no exchange, and no value to think about.