Countrys that will be changed by climate change

[Seattle]

Simply that value is neither inherent nor constant. In response to

I said: Nothing creates value: value can be neither created nor destroyed: it's not a thing, nor yet an attribute of a thing - it's an idea. The value of any thing that exists is as much as a sentient being needs/wants/cherishes it.
You and Billvon then proceeded to prove this proposition.

The abstraction of media of exchange and complexity of transactions add to the price of an item, not to its value. The vagaries of market economics create nothing; have no effect on the value of anything - only on the price of things.

You are just playing word games. Love is not a thing, it's an idea. Can you not find love for one person and not for another. Price and value are largely synonymous in common parlance. The idea that you can't create value is ridiculous no matter how much you play with terminology.

You might say that a babysitter creates more "value" than a software engineer. One earns the minimum wage and the other much more. However that is not the way value is being used here. We aren't talking about what is "fair". We are talking about what skills are less common and therefore more highly valued in a market system.

 

[Jeeves]

You are just playing word games.

The meaning of words is not a game. The destruction of meaning is very serious business.

Love is not a thing, it's an idea.

No, that one is a state of mind. It's personal and internal, while market economics is transactional. There is very little overlap of the two. The overlap that does exist is of cultural attitudes.

Price and value are largely synonymous in common parlance.

That's because the "common parlance" is severely, perhaps fatally, compromised by Moneyspeak.

The idea that you can't create value is ridiculous no matter how much you play with terminology.

That's an opinion I've seen repeated here several times.

You might say that a babysitter creates more "value" than a software engineer.

You might say it; I wouldn't. Neither of those people creates value. The parents of a young child would value the service performed by a babysitter, while a bachelor would not. The owner of a computer-controlled process would value the work of a software engineer, while a shrimper probably would not. All value is in the perception of the user.

One earns the minimum wage and the other much more.

That's the relative price of their respective services.

However that is not the way value is being used here.

By whom?

We aren't talking about what is "fair".

I know you weren't. Why bring it up now?

We are talking about what skills are less common and therefore more highly valued in a market system.

Is that what you're talking about? Okay. A software engineer would be very scarce in 17th century Borneo, while babysitters were resident grandmothers, whom nobody even considered paying, and yet I'm pretty sure the average household would have valued the grandmother over the programmer.
Value is relative. Situational. Not created, but perceived by a sentient being who needs something, wants something or cherishes something.
A 4" piece of flint might have value for a palaeolithic hunter, as it could be made into an arrowhead, while it would have no value to woman building a grass hut. A Ferrari may be prized as a status symbol in the early 21st century, yet discarded as an inadequate potato planter a century later.

 

[Seattle]

The meaning of words is not a game. The destruction of meaning is very serious business.

No, that one is a state of mind. It's personal and internal, while market economics is transactional. There is very little overlap of the two. The overlap that does exist is of cultural attitudes.

That's because the "common parlance" is severely, perhaps fatally, compromised by Moneyspeak.

That's an opinion I've seen repeated here several times.

You might say it; I wouldn't. Neither of those people creates value. The parents of a young child would value the service performed by a babysitter, while a bachelor would not. The owner of a computer-controlled process would value the work of a software engineer, while a shrimper probably would not. All value is in the perception of the user.

That's the relative price of their respective services.

By whom?

I know you weren't. Why bring it up now?

Is that what you're talking about? Okay. A software engineer would be very scarce in 17th century Borneo, while babysitters were resident grandmothers, whom nobody even considered paying, and yet I'm pretty sure the average household would have valued the grandmother over the programmer.
Value is relative. Situational. Not created, but perceived by a sentient being who needs something, wants something or cherishes something.
A 4" piece of flint might have value for a palaeolithic hunter, as it could be made into an arrowhead, while it would have no value to woman building a grass hut. A Ferrari may be prized as a status symbol in the early 21st century, yet discarded as an inadequate potato planter a century later.

Of course it's relative or subjective if you will. So what. What is your ultimate point?

 

[Jeeves]

What is your ultimate point?

I said what I thought was appropriate at the time, in the context of a discussion, as succinctly as clarity permitted. There is no "ultimate" point.

 

[billvon]

You might say it; I wouldn't. Neither of those people creates value. The parents of a young child would value the service performed by a babysitter, while a bachelor would not.

Thus the babysitter creates value for the parents. That value is expressed contingent on supply (how many people can babysit?) and demand (how many new parents vs bachelors?) Simple.

That's the relative price of their respective services.

Don't confuse price and value. Price is merely value expressed in the desired monetary (or other) units. However, they are NOT the same.

Is that what you're talking about? Okay. A software engineer would be very scarce in 17th century Borneo, while babysitters were resident grandmothers, whom nobody even considered paying, and yet I'm pretty sure the average household would have valued the grandmother over the programmer.

Right. And they would have no problem coming up with a value for either one of those services - as you have demonstrated.

Value is relative. Situational. Not created, but perceived by a sentient being who needs something, wants something or cherishes something.

And, when expressed en masse, a market value - which is easily quantifiable for a given market.

 

[Jeeves]

Don't confuse price and value.

Deconfusing those things is precisely what I have been attempting to do here.
If there was an ultimate point, that's it.
Inherent value is constant; market value is contingent.

 

[billvon]

Deconfusing those things is precisely what I have been attempting to do here.
If there was an ultimate point, that's it.
Inherent value is constant; market value is contingent.

You just stated above that value is relative and situational; a perception by one being. That is the opposite of constant.

 

[Jeeves]

You just stated above that value is relative and situational; a perception by one being. That is the opposite of constant.

It is inconstant, changeable and often arbitrary in the second (want) and third (cherish) classes of valuation.
The first class, need, is constant. Oxygen has an absolute and constant value to aerobic organisms - even when the organisms are unaware of this and therefore unable to put a market value on it. The same applies to all basic physical needs: water, nourishment and shelter are of constant, fundamental value to all life-forms, whether they are conscious of that value or not. Such constant fundamental value is not "created", nor is it an attribute of air, water, food and materials with a potential to form shelter for living things: their value is a function of the creature's need, which is inherent in the creature, not the commodity.
The second and third degrees of valuation may build or wreck individual lives, economies, political regimes, civilizations and eco-systems, but the artificial value with which they imbue commodities dissipates utterly when it destroys the commodities of first degree value.
Thus, if your house has burned down, a safe bed to sleep in is worth a great deal more than the Ferrari you strove ruthlessly to acquire; when your child is starving, the concert Steinway is worth less than a quart of milk; when you're cold enough, a sack of coal is worth a diamond necklace.
The climate change brought about by the second and third degree valuations of industrial age civilization will reduce those fundamentally valuable commodities to such scarcity as make all other commodities worth less than nothing.
There. Back on topic! Done.

 

[billvon]

The first class, need, is constant. Oxygen has an absolute and constant value to aerobic organisms

And no value - even negative value - to anaerobic ones. So different values in different markets. But if you define the market (say, humans) it has a very definable value. It is the market that defines the value, not anything inherent or constant to oxygen.

 

[Jeeves]

And no value - even negative value - to anaerobic ones. So different values in different markets. But if you define the market (say, humans) it has a very definable value. It is the market that defines the value, not anything inherent or constant to oxygen.

The anearobic survivors will be pleased - once they've achieved sentience.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I said what I thought was appropriate at the time, in the context of a discussion, as succinctly as clarity permitted. There is no "ultimate" point.

that is called " attempting to play the innocent while re-writing the subnarative to manipulate a different outcome to suit the opposing argument..."

Barack obama recently skimmed this social disorder in his 2019 conference.

injecting a self facing emotional moral absolute to attempt to manipulate a personal gain via a social semi-subconscious narcissistic external social modality.

it is a side branch of a social disorder acclimatized into personality behaviourisms as models of social moral conduct

by "ultimate point" they are politely asking you to hoist a communist flag so they can align their argument to an ad hominem they can psychological and intellectually cope with.
lol

see through vein and ape-ish

 

[Seattle]

https://www.fastcompany.com/3028165/4-ways-to-never-ever-use-jargon-again

that is called " attempting to play the innocent while re-writing the subnarative to manipulate a different outcome to suit the opposing argument..."

Barack obama recently skimmed this social disorder in his 2019 conference.

injecting a self facing emotional moral absolute to attempt to manipulate a personal gain via a social semi-subconscious narcissistic external social modality.

it is a side branch of a social disorder acclimatized into personality behaviourisms as models of social moral conduct

by "ultimate point" they are politely asking you to hoist a communist flag so they can align their argument to an ad hominem they can psychological and intellectually cope with.
lol

see through vein and ape-ish

 

[Jeeves]

that [my factual statement above] is called " attempting to play the innocent while re-writing the subnarative to manipulate a different outcome to suit the opposing argument..."

Do you think so? On what basis?

a self facing emotional moral absolute to attempt to manipulate a personal gain via a social semi-subconscious narcissistic external social modality.

Does this have a translation for laymen?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Thus the babysitter creates value for the parents. That value is expressed contingent on supply (how many people can babysit?) and demand (how many new parents vs bachelors?) Simple.

You might say it; I wouldn't. Neither of those people creates value. The parents of a young child would value the service performed by a babysitter, while a bachelor would not. The owner of a computer-controlled process would value the work of a software engineer, while a shrimper probably would not. All value is in the perception of the user.

this is one of my favorite examples of the lopsided human values of applied moral code

unlike insurance on a stereo/tv/car/house, you can not buy another child
however the nature of the cost to risk value is seen as a direct value of not the risk but the reward for not doing anything.

how much would the babysitter be worth if they prevented the child from a fatal accident ?
is that a lump sum liable fee that may be applied after the case in event of incident ?

do parents actively seek intellectually disabled people who have less value to employ to match the wage rate of the function of the job they value through the pay rate ?

do parents actively seek illegal minors under age girls to illegally employ because it is cheaper or they are able to financially manipulate them to a loss ?

why do babysitting companys seek to employ accredited skilled and experienced women to be paid low wages to compete with pre-teen and teen illegal girls working ?

how is capitalism serving this market reality ?

babysitting clause
should the baby sitter actively or by being present, prevent a serious accident
shall be owed no later than 21 business days a one off payment of $5,000.00
and or additionally, prevent, interrupt or by their presence prevent or interrupt a fatal accident
be owed no later than 21 business days
$10,000.00 lump sum payment
should the babysitter successfully complete a 911 call and have emergency services arrive will be owed, no later than 21 bushiness days
a lump sum payment of $1,000.00
any lump sum payment shall be on top of additional service fees

uniform provided

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Do you think so?

they wish you to change your answer so they can change the subject to one they have pre loaded to win against you.

translation for laymen?

social compliance
cultural bullying
group consensus bullying
emotional guilt tripping
emotional manipulation
social cultural and emotional extortion to force a compliant response to move power and authority of the ownership of the answer or subject to "hand it over" to the one making the assertion of complaint natured bullying

knowing the amount of trolls who are likely to read this i wont get any more detailed.
such trolls are actively attempting to dictate the climate change deniers side of the issue
and those whom are not are just outright dangers to civil society.

 

[Seattle]

how is capitalism serving this market reality ?

Quite well apparently.

Or if you prefer: Corporate Republican Capitalism, greed based on moral deficiencies, using a paradigm of elitism, discomfiting the masses, arrogance, while furthering the wage gap disparity resulting in optimal outcomes.

 

[Quantum Quack]

But value is pure tokenism surely?

 

[Seattle]

"Countries that will be changed by climate change". What is "countries" really? What is "change"?

 

[Jeeves]

this [babysitter value] is one of my favorite examples of the lopsided human values of applied moral code

I wasn't thinking of anything so complex; nor anything about morals. All I tried to get across is that the value of any thing or action does not reside in the thing or action, and is certainly not "created" (whatever creation means in this context) but determined solely by the user's needs, wants and/or appetites.
On consideration of the ethical aspect, I don't feel it's appropriate to put a dollar value on common human decency.

 

[Jeeves]

But value is pure tokenism surely?

I don't understand the question. I understood 'tokenism' to mean something different.