Quote from: Erdogan on May 05, 2015, 11:52:41 AM

Quote from: deisik on May 05, 2015, 11:34:14 AM

Quote from: Erdogan on May 05, 2015, 11:30:01 AM

Quote from: deisik on May 05, 2015, 11:06:42 AM

As you should have known by now (since we had discussed similar issues previously), I maintain the idea that nothing has intrinsic value, all value being subjective. That's why I double-quoted the word. And yes, I meant just that, "direct use value" in your speak, something that you can eat, figuratively speaking in respect to money indeed (the utility of money per se I explained before). Regarding your "exchange value" (it seems that now I get what you mean), you describe not value but the universal machinery which makes exchange possible ("an individual's preference for one thing over another"), irrespective of money. If money didn't represent things which can be bought with it, the exchange with money as an intermediary wouldn't be possible. In fact, the very concept of money wouldn't be possible if things didn't have what you call "exchange value", since there would be no exchange in the first place. Money just represents this "exchange value" of things. This is being proven by the fact that any exchange through money (goods-money-goods) can be done directly, i.e. without money (goods-goods), therefore the value of money is not in the exchange itself...

Here we go again. You may be correct, but using inaccurate, random definitions. How is it possible to regard intrinsic as contrary to subjective?

Why should I repeat it again that there is no such word (intrinsic) in my understanding? I don't consider intrinsic as contrary to subjective, I am just saying that this word makes no sense since all value is subjective. I'm using your words as you mean them (intrinsic as in "something you can eat", though I specifically double-quote them), but you then blame me that they are "inaccurate, random definitions". They are your definitions, not mine...

Is there not a concept "value for direct use" either, in your understanding? It is basically the same, but intrinsic "in itself" captures it better and is the word generally used for the concept in the literature. Objective, on the other hand, which no value is (consistent with value being subjective, an antonym to subjective), means that the value is disconnected from the person valuing it.

As I said, all value is subjective. To me, there is no difference between "value for direct use" or "value for indirect use", it is all the same subjectively. These terms only confuse things and are a cause of futile debates, which this argument obviously confirms. Anything can be of utility to an individual, or not. If it is, then it can be of less utility than something else, or of more. The difference in utility (strictly speaking, in marginal utility) is the basis for exchange, without it no exchange between people would be possible at all (with or without money)...

Such objective qualities as caloric content, taste, color and whatnot are no concern of economics unless they serve as a basis for subjective valuation by a person making choice