Summations Only

Absolutely: they don't have any Economic worth, even though they might have "worth" to the economy.But we all know Economics is bullshit anyways.

Here's what I don't get:So you go to a shop and see an ipod for 300.Turns out it was fake and doesn't do anything and it ain't worth shit.Was it really worth 300 because you got tricked into paying that for it?

So as long as people keep passing the buck by tricking people, a fake useless iPod would actually be worth 300?

Show me this real economics. Shouldn't that be called Economology then?

What I was getting at was a perceived issue with the definition of value being what someone is willing to pay for something. The problem I was seeing was when you were willing to pay for something, but its not what you think it is. So, should you really define the value of that thing as what was paid for it when afterwards you know that it really wasn't worth shit?But I guess the issue boils down to the willingness of the person. They wouldn't have been willing to pay that for it if they had known what it really was. Well not necessarily. That's what else I was getting at: You could just pass the buck and trick the next guy into buying it. Does it really have that value if you have to trick people into being willing to pay that much for it? And I guess I now realize that the answer is "no", because they weren't really willing to pay that much for the item, its just that they were tricked into thinking it was something else, and that something else is what they were willing to pay for, not the junk.

Sure, but that's not something that can be measured and quantifed like Economic Value can. Scary, huh? Here's an issue that we didn't get a chance to resolve in the other thread, and it pertains to this topic:Let's say you come up with a worthy idea, but don't have the money to make it happen. How much is the guy who loans you the money that allows your idea to come to fruition contributing to the worth in this case? Without the money, your idea is worthless since it can't be realized. You don't seem to put much value on the people who invest in venture capital.

So which definition would work and how do you measure and quantify it? How do you account for the things that aren't quantifyable? In the other thread, you were saying that the rich weren't contributing enough to the wealth creation, but you don't have any way of measuring that contribution. Too, your using Economic charts that use the definition that Percy does to evidence your position. It just doesn't add up. You were already going to invest in the infrastructure regardless of this idea. And there's no way to quanitfy how much value your investment has. How can you actually count that investment towards the contribution to the value of the idea?If the guy loaned you $100 to make your idea, and then you sold it for $200 and payed him back $110 dollars. The value of your idea was $90 to you. He contributed $100 to it, and it was worth $10 to him. It was worth $200 to the one that bought it from you. So how much value does the contribution of the society to the infrastructure have? But you have no way of measuring that, so how do you know? And how much of the wealth from the idea above was the guy who loaned the money responsible for creating? Without him, it would have been worth nothing because you couldn't realize it.Too the wealth that was created was measured using Percy's definition, so how can you use a different definition of wealth to determine the contribution to that definition?

So which definition would work and how do you measure and quantify it? I can, but the significance is going to be a guess. The chart was showing income, not wealth. The chart did not show the above. The income of the top 5% increased disproportionally, but the median income still rose. Everybody benefitted but the top 5% benefitted more. I don't see why the increases must be proportional to be consistent with TDE working. Yeah, and if Christopher Columbus didn't discover the new world then the infrastructure in question wouldn't even exist. But we don't pin all that contribution on him.The infrastructure is neither here nor there. More immense than Columbus's contribution? I don't think so Well, how much did the guy who loaned you the money you needed to get your idea to come to fruition contribute? If you didn't get that loan, then your idea had a value of $0.

Depends on what you're looking at. Is it reasonable to think that Columbus discovering the new world had a negligible effect? How so? Because their income rose so much? Are you sure that really shows what you think it does? But we haven't determined how much they've contributed. How much did the guy who loaned you the money to get your idea realized contribute? The wealth they are not receiving. The median income did rise too. Well that doesn't answer the question, but regardless, I don't think I've done that anyways. Okay. Consider it done. What's the next step?

---

Is income the only procede of increased productivity?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

And how would you have the weather be in your fantasy world?

Free access to resources is a fantasy.

What does that have to do with this?

Are you just conflating different definitions of "value"?

quote:

---

In ethics, value is a property of objects, including physical objects as well as abstract objects (e.g. actions), representing their degree of importance.

---

Value - Wikipedia(ethics)

quote:

---

An economic value is the worth of a good or service as determined by the market.

---

Value - Wikipedia(economics)

There's more to it than that... You're just isolating your claim from any context so you can believe that you were right about something. If you follow the exchange, you can see that you're not really making sense: Unless you're actually claiming that owners of capital are blockades to your access to oxygen, sunlight, and friends. People having money isn't the reason you don't have friends, Jon People having money doesn't blockade you from sunlight and air. The fact that you're not blockaded from sunlight and air doesn't mean that you are contributing to wealth. Nested Quotes Alert! Please edit wiserEdited by AdminPhat, : phat-o-gram

You never did show me the Real Economics^TM...