Jon writes:
Obviously that's
not my view, since I've mentioned elsewhere some of the ways to make people value things more. In
Message 206, I mentioned that increasing the perceived benefit a product has to consumers is one way to raise the value of something. You also made a similar claim in
Message 251.
Well now you're just making a big hash of things. In
Message 206 you emphasized that for you scarcity increased price, not value, but now you're saying it does increase value. And in
Message 251 where I argued that advertising could increase perceived value you replied with unrestrained sarcasm, concluding I believe with, "Shocker that is!"
I suppose I should give up hope of ever getting a consistent story out of you, but what the heck. So if you believe a person's perception of value can change over time, what criteria are you applying in deciding which things can affect perceived value and which can't? Seems to me that any and all information available to a person could affect that perception to varying degrees, so please explain how you are dividing things into these two categories of things that can affect perceived value and things that can't.
Super peas with the power to bestow immortality would have a much higher value than regular peas.
Super peas would be a different product from peas.
Value in use assigns an infinite value to air. Let us know when you find infinity on the demand curve.
Let me know when you find people in possession of an infinite quantity of goods to exchange for air.
Jon, you're right, it's ridiculous, but that's the position you took. I'm just describing your own position to you. Maybe at some point you should look up what value
in use means. In the case of air and other nutrients essential for human survival it means the value is infinite. I quoted the definition in this very thread, but there you were several posts later arguing that value
in trade is useless and that only value
in use made any sense for setting the demand curve.
So are we going to see a response that makes sense this time. Maybe you have a different definition of value
in use? Maybe you'll change your mind and decide that value
in trade is the definition to use for circumstances where money is changing hands, i.e., things are being traded? But please, whatever you decide to answer, try to make sense.
--Percy