Talk:Objectivist theory of value

[edit] Original resarch

I know this article reeks of original research. Here is what I did: there is no entry for the objective theory of value, as presented by Von Mises and Rand. So I started one. I consider this article to be a framework for further enhancement. It presents a concise sumary of the theory. I think what should be done is expand the article by including references to the work of others, without loosing the outline of the article, as I think it would otherwise loose its clarity. Instead of expanding here, sections could have links to subsections elsewhere. Philosophical subjects can be quite dense to the untrained reader, and no value will be added by turning the article into a lengthy academic paper. -- Dullfig 20:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the article might be misnamed. I always thought that "objective theory of value" was just another name for an intrinsic theory of value. Further, it is my understanding that Von Mises was a marginalist, and, as such, supported the subjective theory of value. Perhaps the contents of this page should be merged into the Objectivist philosophy article, and the page itself should be made a redirect to intrinsic theory of value. -- Nikodemos 23:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, a Google search on 'objective theory of value' gives far more pages referring to classical and Marxist views than pages referring to Ayn Rand. How about we call Ayn Rand's theory the Objectivist theory of value, to avoid confusion? -- Nikodemos 23:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is part of the problem. There is no agreement on what to call it; but I think that one cannot call the intrinsic theory both intrinsic and objective without leading to confusion. Besides, intrinsic is a much more accurate name, as the intrinsic theory holds that the value resides entirely in the item, without regard to the consumer. But this cannot be true, because the same item might be of different value to different people. No matter how much or how little you value an item, this value is always based on intrinsic properties of the item. People don't just "make up" the value of an item. So it is not entirely subjective either. There is a reason you pick a rock over a nerf ball (sponge ball) to defend yourself! So I believe this theory of value has strong merit to it, and I would disagree with just tucking it away out of sight in the Objectivist page. It is not just some obscure theory. -- Dullfig 00:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the theory has strong merit, but right now this page makes it look like the theory is the exclusive domain of Objectivist philosophy. If that is true, it should be merged with objectivist philosophy like I said. If, on the other hand, we agree that the theory can stand on its own, we should tone down the attributions to Rand. What do you think? -- Nikodemos 00:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, she never called objectivist theory of value, but objective theory of value, so we would be changing the name anyways. Dullfig 00:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

True, but Rand did not invent the term "objective theory of value". It was (and still is) used for the most part to refer to intrinsic theories of value. Clearly, intrinsic theories are objective too... So what should we call this? I don't know, but I'm open to suggestions. -- Nikodemos 00:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How about Objective theory of value (Ayn Rand)? And make this page a disambig between Ayn Rand's theory and Intrinsic theories of value. -- Nikodemos 00:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should change it to Objectivist theory of value. That could work. -- Dullfig 02:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done. -- Dullfig 02:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with Rand, but I think Rand has a subjective theory of value: "The market value of a product is not an intrinsic value, not a 'value in itself' hanging in a vacuum. A free market never loses sight of the question: Of value to whom? And, within the broad field of objectivity, the market value of a product does not reflect its philosophically objective value, but only its socially objective value." A philosophically objective value is "estimated from the standpoint of the best possible to man." Socially objective value is "the sum of the individual judgments of all the men involved in trade at a given time, the sum of what they valued, each in the context of his own life." From that, I think it's clear she has a subjective theory of value. BUT, she ALSO holds that there are things that a person SHOULD value (philosophical objective value), correct? Just because she thinks people OUGHT to value some particular thing, doesn't mean the doesn't have a subjective theory of value --that position that value is not intrinic. Am I right? RJII 03:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, page 22:

--start quote--

The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of "things themselvs" nor of man's emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man's consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man--and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit context-dropping or "concept-stealing"; it does not permit the separation of "value" from "purpose," of the good from beneficiaries, and of man's action from reason.

--end quote--

'nuf said :) -- Dullfig 19:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Totally different subject. You don't understand what the STV is. Rand is using "value" to mean "worth." In the STV, "value" refers to market price.Anarcho-capitalism 07:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I don't know what STV is? You have probably never even touched a Rand book, much less read it, I suspect. If anything, you probably go by what the dictionary says about Rand's work. Yes, Rand wrote a lot about phylosophy, art, etc., but her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is 100%, entirely, cover to cover, all about the economy, and the capitalist system. Please read it before venturing an (misinformed) opinion. Please. -- Dullfig 17:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I responding to RJII above, not you. And yes I have read a good amount of Rand. I don't agree with all of her points, but I think she's great.Anarcho-capitalism 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry (he says with a sheepish grin). :-) Dullfig 17:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem.Anarcho-capitalism 18:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zero Citations

No verifiability / reliability of sources when there are none -- bit of a problem

[edit] Not a theory of economic value

This article doesn't make sense. It's pitting Rand's philosophy of value against the subjective theory of value, but the subjective theory of value is theory about why things have different prices in the market. That's not what Rand's theory of value is about. The subjective theory of value says that for a thing to have a market price that it has to be useful in satisfying wants and it can't be in ulimited supply. The STV is about market price. Rand's theory of value is not about that. Economizer 17:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe its a theory about value, in general including ethics and esthetics and economics? If so, it is a discussion in metaethics. RickardV 15:03, November 24 2006 (GMT)

Have either of you read Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal? Maybe you should, before making pronouncements on what objectivism is and isn't... Dullfig 17:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have, and it's a totally different subject. Subjective theory of value says that the reason why different people are willing to pay different prices for the same thing is because the same thing can be of different usefulness to different people. For example, if I have 3 hamburgers, then I'm only willing to pay a very low price for an 4th because my hunger is satiated. If you have zero hamburgers, then you are willing to pay more than me for that same hamburger because you're more hungry. Rand wouldn't disagree with that. It's not in conflict with her theory of objective value at all. "Value" in the subjective theory of value simply refers to price. "Value" in the subjective theory of value doesn't refer to "worth," but price. Value in Rand's theory refers to worth, not price. Two different subjects.Anarcho-capitalism 07:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] proposed for deletions

this article is original research and attempts to establish a term that is not used often in popular press, nor in academic research. it has fewer than 500 mentions in google. --Buridan 17:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And very few of those make reference to Rand [1]. Banno 01:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove picture to fix layout

Hume's picture seems to create the extra white-space - I suggest removing it, but - if you want to revert this move, please do. Karbinski 16:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Where was the white space? I can't find any, using the OS/browser arrangements that I've tried. Bastin 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for me under the heading neccesity of value there was a large gap between the heading and the text. The right-side bar extended past the heading for the length of the gap, then the text began in alignment with the top of Hume's image (which appeared immediately below the right-side bar). I don't know if I've made myself sufficiently clear. Karbinski 23:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right. That didn't happen in mine, because the bar ends quite a way short of there in my browser. That's an issue that always occurs with that form of navigation bar, rather than being a specific case here. It infuriates me, and makes me wonder what sort of idiot created such a template in the first place, rather than using a footer. Someone that wants his or her work to be widely acknowledged, I suppose... Bastin 23:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)