Perception of derivation of value [price]

[JIM DUNDON 08.14.2006.1306EDST]

Perceptions of derivation of value are manifest in economic theories.

Karl Marx believed that value is determined by labor; his "labor theory of
value". The labor theory of value says that whatever the value of your
labor is at the time of the input of labor that value is sustained untill
the commencement of consumption. It assumes an unalterable, unchallangeable
value. But in terms of what? They had to refer to western markets for a
value. Communism requires that a perception of value can
and will be attatched to every unit of labor.. It must therefore dictate
that environmental conditions [disturbances] be denied, controlled or
ignored. It means that everyones interests and values be completely
predictable, maintainable, eternal.

It has been said that the reason he didn't publish the two additional books
he wrote before his death was because he had begun to realize he was wrong,
that it was not possible for everyone to have the same values everywhere at
all times. He had begun to realize that value in exchange was determined at
the point of trade.

In order to control this perception he had to dictate all production, all
distribution, and all consumption. This meant dictation of all value
judgements of perceptions of tastes and preferences, all perceptions of
labor input, and the elimination of any perception of individual experience
of control, creativity or self-satisfaction by the individual. All
perceptions were to be dictated by the proletariat until all competition was
eliminated.

When Nixon attempted to implement price and wage controls there was never a
once a recognition of identity with the Marxian perception.

I like to believe that I have some sense of control over what my weeks
labor is going to yield in real goods on payday. If I had absolute control
over it that it would be great. This must be the basis for the appeal of
Communism. But that requires a world without disturbance. No influence from
nature. On the other hand, what if my interests or values or needs change,
it is then great if I can accomodate these changes. And it would be great if
by some stroke of luck I got two or three times what I expected.

The perception of derivation of value in a free market theory of value
accepts the unpredictable nature of value in exchange determined by supply
and demand.

The perception of derivation of value in the Axiomatic Theory of Economics
[Victor Aquila; see attatchment] discards the notion of supply and demand
and says value is determined by stock [as in amount in store]. If there is
supply and demand
they are emergent variables. [I think]

Rick, Bill, Martin, Bjorn, others, if you are not yet familiar with this
theory, check it out.

It may appeal to your mathematical bent. In any event what do you think of
it? See attatchment.

Best

Jim D

intro.pdf (365 KB)

[From Bill Powers (2006.08.16.1130 MDT)]

JIM DUNDON 08.14.2006.1306EDST --

Perceptions of derivation of value are manifest in economic theories.

I think disucssion on CSGnet on this topic might be productively informed by a glance at the several long and I think fruitful discussions on value according to PCT (mainly between the late Bill Williams and me, but also including Bruce Gregory and occasionally sidetracked by Marc) over the period February 2004 to June 2004 on the ECACS Forum. The "Economics" folder containing those threads is at <http://ecacs.net/discus/messages/192/211.html&gt;\. The main relevant threads are "What does Value mean", "Computing a Price Index", and "Various Foundational Issues".

On the "Foundational Issues" thread, I have a long PCT-based essay about the nature of money and of value , at <http://ecacs.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=192&post=1028#POST1028&gt;\. It was once prepared for, or perhaps posted to, CSGnet. It may serve once again as a basis for discussion, if anyone feels so inclined.

Having briefly scanned the Axiomatic Theory of Value posted by Jim Dundon, I think that if Jim liked that abstract, he would probably be very interested in the approach of Samual Bagno of 50+ years ago <http://www.mmtaylor.net/Economics/Bagno/index.html&gt; or my riff on it exactly 50 years ago <http://www.mmtaylor.net/Economics/thesis/thesis.html&gt;\. These are on my personal Web site, not the ECACS Forum, and have not been the subject of discussion (so far as I am aware :-).

Martin

[From Bill Powers (2006.08.16.2240 MDT)]

Martin Taylor (2006.08.16) --

I think disucssion on CSGnet on this topic might be productively informed by a glance at the several long and I think fruitful discussions on value according to PCT (mainly between the late Bill Williams and me, but also including Bruce Gregory and occasionally sidetracked by Marc) over the period February 2004 to June 2004 on the ECACS Forum. The "Economics" folder containing those threads is at <http://ecacs.net/discus/messages/192/211.html&gt;\. The main relevant threads are "What does Value mean", "Computing a Price Index", and "Various Foundational Issues".

Started reading that a little. It's amazing how closely I agree with everything you say. I love this sort of clear tight reasoning. I remember in the old days I used to land on you with both feet sometimes, but all that's gone now. What you say about value is exactly what I believe. The best think about it is that you derived it all independently.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Bill Powers (2006.08.17.1300 MDT)]

Dick Robertson, 2006.08.17.1210CDT--

Unless I'm badly mistaken, the phrase above,
"...PCT...offers a new basis for defining
value...the reference signal...."

says essentially the same as:

the Wikipedia article...quoted below

You said what I just posted, but quicker.

Best,

Bill P.

[from Tracy Harms (2006;08,18.08:30 Pacific)]

Bill Powers (2006.08.17.1300 MDT) wrote:

Dick Robertson, 2006.08.17.1210CDT--

>Unless I'm badly mistaken, the phrase above,
>"...PCT...offers a new basis for defining
>value...the reference signal...."
>
>says essentially the same as:
>
> the Wikipedia article...quoted below

You said what I just posted, but quicker.

Best,

Bill P.

This summary does not suffice. Given that you wrote a
nice elaboration on subjective value, in PCT terms, I
find it disappointing that you are willing to collapse
things to this simplification.

The best part of your reply to me was the section
where you wrote:

So what determines value is the set of all reference
levels for goods/services, [and the environment in
action is taken.] The person's expenditures for each
good/service will depend on the equilibrium point of
all the control systems that are acting and

interacting

at the same time -- and of course on [the

environment]

(I hope my bracketed substitutions are suitable,
here.)

Can we move from this description, which I think is
good, to saying that value is defined on the basis of
the reference signal? I think we cannot. A complex
of control systems is not a reference signal, and it
does not have a reference signal. It involves various
reference signals, we agree, but there are many other
components and features in play as well. Does
something nominate "the reference signal" as being
somehow specially tied with valuation, or the results
of valuation? No. It makes no more sense, and
facilitates no more insight, than to say that the
basis for defining value is the idea of the input
signal. Nobody in this forum would find that to be
worthwhile; we must similarly dispense with a crude
association between value and reference signal.

Tracy Harms

ยทยทยท

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

[Martin Taylor 2006.08.18.13.32]

[from Tracy Harms (2006;08,18.08:30 Pacific)]

Can we move from this description, which I think is
good, to saying that value is defined on the basis of
the reference signal? I think we cannot. A complex
of control systems is not a reference signal, and it
does not have a reference signal. It involves various
reference signals, we agree, but there are many other
components and features in play as well. Does
something nominate "the reference signal" as being
somehow specially tied with valuation, or the results
of valuation? No. It makes no more sense, and
facilitates no more insight, than to say that the
basis for defining value is the idea of the input
signal. Nobody in this forum would find that to be
worthwhile; we must similarly dispense with a crude
association between value and reference signal.

Did you look at the discussions on the PCT-nature of "value" I referenced in my earlier message of 16 Aug (in which I unfortunately forgot the [...] header line), most specifically at <http://ecacs.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=192&post=1028#POST1028&gt;?

Here again are the thread references: <http://ecacs.net/discus/messages/192/211.html&gt;\. The main relevant threads are "What does Value mean", "Computing a Price Index", and "Various Foundational Issues".

Bill said he agreed with what I said there, so I imagine that they ought to serve as responses to your message.

Martin