I agree, except I see you possibly equivocating between value and price with your "Every person at different times value everything at different prices." A version of this that does not suggests equivocation is "Every person at different times are willing to pay different prices for what they think is a value."

The other thing I would add to what you wrote is is "The market can be mistaken or defrauded about both price and value." That's why an independent person will perform his own analysis to determine both whether something is a value (by figuring out the why) and, once it's determined to be a value, whether the price is a fair one.

People can be mistaken in holding an internal standard that their self-worth is dependent on the evaluation of others. Like I said, people can be mistaken or defrauded about values.

One thing I've come to learn from the conversations on this thread is to distinguish between value and price. Value is qualitative and price is quantitative.

Something is of value if it enhances the life of the valuer in some way. Water, for example, is of value to human life. We need to consume it at least every 3 days to survive (in hot climate the time period is shorter).

Something should be assigned a price ONLY if it is of value to your life. The price reflects the cost to acquire that thing from someone else and/or the existence of alternatives. So in a place where there are a variety of places to get water, then the price of water will be low. However, in a place where water is scarce, then the price will be high. The fact that the price is high doesn't mean water is more valuable, and the fact that the price is low doesn't mean that value has decline. It just means the costs to acquire it from someone else has change. The value (i.e., needing to consume it every 3 days to survive) remains the same.

Now, people can be mistaken or defrauded into thinking that something is a value when in fact it does not. And so they can be mistaken or defrauded into assigning a price to it when they shouldn't. This is why relying on the fact that others have assigned a price to something as a determinant on whether it is a value or not is not a good methodology to operate from.

It doesn't follow that the fact that the subjective theory is wrong means you have to assume that things are inherently valuable in themselves (the intrinsic theory). It is a false dichotomy to assume that it's either subjective or intrinsic. There is a third choice: the objective. Value based on facts and a valuer.

By saying "aren't allowed", are you saying that I will use force on people who are mistaken? Because I've made no such claims. People are allowed and are often mistaken. They also pay for the consequences of their mistakes all the time.


It may be true that gold is scarce. It may be true that gold has high stock-to-flow ratio. It may be true that it's hard to destroy. These are not the attributes that makes gold value. Gold is valuable due to its affect on the valuer, specifically, Man. Now, those attributes may make gold expensive (i.e., cause it to have a high price), but price and value are two different things.

Theranos stock was once usable to “obtain objects, things of value”. That doesn’t mean the stock in the company had value. So the answer to your question is, because people can be mistaken or defrauded.

If I didn't read what you wrote or ignored 90% of it, then how did I manage to describe what you mean by the subjective theory of value?


Yes. I agree that it's about behavior. You value your life. That's why you acquire fiat currency to pay taxes (probably more than just that but let just stick with taxes for now) so that you can protect your life from government force. Now, are you doing it because of some delusional fear about the government coming after you if you don't pay taxes? If so, then that would make the value of fiat currency subjective. However, if it is factual that the government would come after you, then fiat currency has the objective utility value of keeping you out of jail or worse. You may not like it, but facts are not subject to your whims.


You forgot to include in the quote of my response my quote of what you wrote. This is what you wrote:

Humans
Arent
Fuckin
Rational

It was in camel case capitalization with each word on separate lines for emphasis. So yes, I read what you wrote and took it seriously.



We can make mistakes. We can also be defrauded. That's why objectivity requires that you verify your assumptions against facts using logic.

Humans has the capacity to be rational. It's a choice in terms of whether they want to be or not.

First, I want to distinguish concepts from words. Concept are the ideas in your head. Words are the perceptual reference to those concepts. Words are like pointers to concepts.

As you’ve observed, different culture uses different languages which have different words pointing to the same concept. So the concept of “spoon” may have different words in German vs. English but they both refer to the same concept. That is, similar objects (but not identical) arises in the recipient’s mind when you say the word “spoon” or its equivalent in German (to a German language person).

Now I agree with you that it doesn’t matter what the words are. That is, it doesn’t matter if the English person calls the concept of spoon “spoon” or “price” or “glast” unless they want to communicate with another English speaker. At that point, it does matter that there is agreement between the two individual that the word “spoon” refers to the same concept.

Now, that may mean that the words, for the purposes of communication, are necessarily subjective; but it doesn’t mean that the concepts themselves are.

For example, I may “feel” like the concept of “glast” should refer to both things that can be used to scoop soup as well as things that can be used to cut meat. But that would be an invalid concept because it is tying things together by their non-essential. That is, spoons are used for specific type of tasks. Even if no two spoons are identical, they all can be used for the same tasks. Knives, however, are used for very different tasks. To combine these two category of things together under the same concept would make the concept useless and therefore invalid.

Now, some person may claim that, based on their feelings, the term “glast” should refer to both spoon-objects and knives-objects. And they would suffer the consequences for creating and using invalid concepts by ignoring the fact of reality that these are two very different objects.

Please don’t take my lack of comment on your other points as agreement, but I only want to respond to this point because it is so much more important than the other points. This is because the validity of the subjective theory of value affects more things than just Bitcoin.

To answer your question of, “What value would any good have if we didn’t exist?” The answer is: No value.

I wrote in a response to another person that value requires the existence of a value. More specifically, a thing is a value when it supports that person’s life, and a thing is a disvalue if it harms that person’s life.

Now you’re probably thinking, so doesn’t this prove that value are subjective in that it is dependent on the subject? For example, a large piece of cheesecake may be a value to a healthy 20 years old subject, but a disvalue to a 60 years old with diabetes subject.

I say no because this is not what the term subjective means when use in conjunction with the term objective. Subjective means independent of facts (i.e., to go by feelings) and objective means dependent on facts.

Now, if you were to ask, “So who, other than the subject determines whether something is an value to that subject or not?” I would respond with, anybody with access to the facts could make that determination. For example, it’s not hard for me to draw the conclusion that the crack Mr. X is taking is a disvalue to him even if Mr. X disagrees and feels like it is a value because it serves the purpose of helping him evade some sort of psychological pain. If I were to use a more ambiguous example of marijuana, I would say that it’s harder for me to draw this conclusion about Mr. Y usage of it since I don’t know if he’s using it to evade some sort of psychological pain (which would make it a disvalue since it delays the requirement for him to address that pain) or if he’s using it to numb physical pain to which he has no other way to deal with.

So as you can see, I agree with you that value requires a valuer; but to be objective it also requires facts too.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that I should have as a starting premise, "Bitcoin is money"? And do you also mean that I should not have any supporting argument(s) to prove why this as an epistemic status of "probable" or "certain"? If not, then perhaps you can elaborate more on what you mean.

Thank you for the quoted content. I have disagreements with the content. Here are some of them.

1. The commodity (or ornamental) value of gold ensures that there will always be a buyer of last resort. It will be the "consumer" of that gold. This means that the gold you're holding in your hands is actual wealth and not only some intermediary product that you can exchange with a willing trader for actual wealth in the future. And the fact that gold is used as a medium of exchange (in a free market) just means that the buyer of last resort is willing to forgo the gold because there is greater demand (i.e., someone willing to pay a higher price) for the gold for use as a medium of exchange.

2. Fiat's currency support isn't "memory price". It's legal tender laws, tax laws, price control laws, etc. It is the gun. I also think that loan agreements denominated in that currency also serve to motivate people to collect fiat currency. However, if the gun goes away, then I think that people will shift away from using that currency for the loan agreements. Evidence of fiat currency can be found in their disappearance from use, despite memory prices, for countries that no longer exists (e.g., the Confederacy, South Vietnam after 1975, etc.)

3. Isn't the instability in the exchange rate for Bitcoin a good indicator that the "price memory" theory isn't working?

We are in agreement that scarcity and durability are necessary but insufficient conditions. We don't agree that only other condition (if this is indeed your position) is for people to say that it is valuable. This is the subjective theory of value that I've refuted in my original post.

I invite you to take a look at the argument map that I created to help me write the article to see the circular loop more obviously.

https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/693?token=845ecf75-edc9-42fc-9440-bfebe8d42072

I think it's important to distinguish between value and price. A piece of chocolate cake from that Michelin star has a certain amount of value to you, but perhaps the price is too high for you and so you make do with an alternative that provides similar but not exactly the same value. But something must have some value for it to deserve any price. If you assign a price to something worthless (of no value) by buying it, then you will suffer the consequences if you end up being the last one to "hold the bag."

Math doesn't make an idea objective. Objectivity doesn't mean "using logic or math". It means "volitional adherence to reality". It means turning your mind towards reality to identify facts and use them in your evaluations.

The fact that you can be defrauded doesn't mean that facts don't exist, or you don't try to use your best judgment and perform due diligence to ensure that what you think is true actually is true. That's what it means to be objective.

I think that this is a great recognition of value as being dependent on a valuer. However, there is a difference between an objective value (value dependent on purpose & facts) and subjective value (value independent on facts). What this means is that just because someone considers something to be a value to them doesn't mean that it is. People can be defrauded or mistaken.

There's no such thing as intrinsic value. That is, there is no such thing as value that's independent of a valuer. That is, to say that something is a value, you must identify "to whom" and for "what purpose?" To say that something is an objective value, you must be able to identify the facts in reality (vs. feelings) as to why it serves that purpose for that individual.

Gold has multiple objective values. It has functional values in the form of conductor, tooth fillings, etc. But gold also has an aesthetic value too. For more on the aesthetic value of gold, please refer to this article. https://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/11/30/in-praise-of-gold-not-a-barbarous-relic-but-a-spiritual-value

If you own stock in a company, you are an owner of that company. This means the profits that the company produces belong to you. This is a value independent of whether others want to pay you money for that stock or not.

Odd. I would've made the assumption that if someone wrote what I wrote that the writer is anti-taxation and anti-fiat currency. However, the fact that I am anti-taxation and anti-fiat currency doesn't mean that I am oblivious to the fact that I must give the government those pieces of paper to live.

I am also not oblivious to the fact that ANY currency requires the sanction of the government. That is, the government can easily make that currency next to useless by banning it. This means contracts denominated in that currency is unenforceable. You cannot build large enterprises relying on unenforceable contracts. All that you can build are criminal organizations where you need to hire your own mercenaries to enforce your contracts.

Bitcoin, even if it has some value that I've yet been unable to identify, is not a solution to government force. The only solution is philosophical in nature. But that's a different matter all together.

Putting side the utility of gold (e.g., tooth fillings) and diamonds (e.g., cutting devices), art is fuel for the soul. Gold and diamonds are used to create objects that gives you motivation to do more. You enjoy art (and music) as an end to itself and not just as a means to an end. This idea of things being consumed as an end in itself applies to many things. Take for example a piece of steak. You can eat any cooked piece of meat to get protein for you body (means to an end). Yet you are willing to work more to get more money to spend on a nice piece of steak in a romantic restaurant. This is an example of fuel for the soul. Man is not just an animal. He is an animal with a *volitional* consciousness. The fuel is to give his violation to do more.



I invite you to take a look at this argument map  that I've created to help me write this article. I look forward to feedback on additional arguments for why Bitcoin has value that is not dependent on circular logic or invalid theories of value.

https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/905?token=1e709bb0-c732-4077-85a4-e0a64af89098


I disagree. There is the objective theory of value. That is, that which is valuable to your life is substantiated by objective fact. Take for example water. Water, in certain quantities, is objectively valuable to your life. You can pretend that it's not all you want, but you will be dead after a certain amount of time if you do not consume something that has water in it. This is an objective fact not subject to any subjective whim.

One reason that has not been given, but may be the the reason why many people buy and hold Bitcoin is its use as a betting instrument. That is, you buy it paying X dollars today in the hope that you will get >X dollars when you sell it at some time in the future. Of course, if it has no other value than that of a betting instrument, then this is really a game of "holding the bag" with the last people out getting screwed.