Yes, necessarily. Indeed, by definition. There is no economic value apart from production.
Money that is inherited carries value from other people who worked for it. (emphasis added)
So how do you say one sentence and then openly contradict it in the next sentence and then think that the contradiction supports the first sentence?
In an honest economy, value is exchanged for value by voluntary mutual consent for mutual benefit. Anything else is theft. If money represents something other than value, then it too is a form of theft.
So, the question is, what creates value? Right Divider is saying, in so many words, that its entirely subjective and that value is whatever someone decides it is for any reason or for no reason at all. This is just not so, but I've failed to find the words to convince him otherwise and we've reached an impasse.
I'm going to take a different tack in an attempt to break the impasse. I'm going to come at it from a strictly logical, almost syllogistic angle and see if that doesn't get the point to penetrate...
First let's define "value". A value is that which one acts to gain or to keep.
Is value subjective? Yes, but not entirely. It is anchored to production, to how easy or difficult a value is to gain or to keep (or replace).
So, taking it step by step...
- A thing cannot be valued until it exists.
- A thing cannot exist unless it is produced.
- Therefore, all value presupposes production.
Now, while the perception of value may differ from person to person, that perception can only occur after production has taken place. You can’t value what does not exist.
Further...
- The harder it is to produce something, whether because of time, skill, rarity, or effort, the less abundant it is.
- The less abundant something is, the more valuable it tends to be in trade (exceptions to this prove the rule).
- Therefore, production difficulty affects perceived value even in subjective terms.
Lastly...
- Even if people value different things for different reasons, they only do so within the framework of what is available, and what is available is determined by what can be produced.
So yes, value is subjective, but
subjective value depends on objective production. Perceptions are subjective but production is an absolute. A bar of steel has either been produced or it does not exist. That production costs the producer time and talent, which, if he values his life, he isn't going to expend for nothing. If he cannot receive something in exchange for what's it's cost him to produce the steel then he's going to stop expending his time and talent (i.e. his life) producing it.
Thus, it requires that others value the result of his productive efforts sufficiently to compensate him for that production such that he has incentive to continue producing. The more steel he produces, the easier it gets for him to produce it and the easier it gets for his customers to acquire it and thus the value per unit drops for both the producer and the consumer. Not because of causeless whim or mindless personal opinion, but because of the objective reality of production!
To detach perceived value from production is to pretend that people could value non-existent assets and trade them, which is why I was telling Right Divider that he is - unknowingly - attempting to define value in terms of it's negation. You cannot value that which cannot be acquired nor can you keep that which you do not have. The non-existent is of no value and that which exists was made by someone who is it's first rightful owner by virtue of the fact that they produced it at the cost of their time and effort (i.e. at the cost of a portion of their life). Thus, life is the basis for private property rights and the source of that properties value both to the producer and the consumer.
