Re: US Presidents; an outside view WAS: Any comments? (Evolution - was Answers to Pet

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
 

> Repetition does not make for greater validity of argument, Mr Plinston.

Well, actually, it was not merely a repition, the underscores indicated
additional words to clarify the position.

> In that the stick, when used as a crutch for people who can then garner
> more food for themselves and their tribe, has an increased utility or
> importance than does a stick which has only the attributes of kindling,
> then it has by definition more value (http://www.m-w.com/value, 3)

Which seems to be a mere repition in the hope of obtaining greater
validity.

It may well be that a particular size of stick that is strong enough
may be more valuable than one that is just a twig only useful for
kindling, but sticking a piece of kindling under your arm does not make
it strong enough.

It may well be also that a person may be more valuable when mobile then
when crippled.
 
>
> In that a book can serve to transmit entertainment, information or
> education by its use (ie, by its being read) then it has greater utility
> or importance than does a book which can only be used as tinder; given
> that 'relative worth, utility or importance' is a definition of value (see
> citing above) then the conclusion applies.

But reading a book does not make blank pages into entertainment. The
_printing_ of a book adds value to the paper, the reading of it makes
no difference to the book, except wear and tear.

> Mr Plinston, you seem to be equating price and value here; it might be
> that we are using different definitions.  I've cited the one that I feel
> is applicable to the situation and its source; might you be so kind as to
> cite the one you are using and where you found it?

You should take that up with Howard who was the one who put numbers of
dollars to his book.

In article <1146099700.397496.132270@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
Richard <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> 
> 
>
>Well, actually, it was not merely a repition, the underscores indicated
>additional words to clarify the position.

My apologies, Mr Plinston... it seemed close enough to a repetition.

> 
>
>Which seems to be a mere repition in the hope of obtaining greater
>validity.

My apologies, Mr Plinston; my attempt was to demonstrate that this
particular argument was based on a definition from a commonly-accepted
source.

>
>It may well be that a particular size of stick that is strong enough
>may be more valuable than one that is just a twig only useful for
>kindling, but sticking a piece of kindling under your arm does not make
>it strong enough.

No stick will be used as a crutch, Mr Plinston, until someone thinks of
doing so... unless you wish to posit some kind of universe where sticks
leap into this position of their own volition.  Are you saying that the
value of stick-as-crutch exists in the stick before anyone knows it can be
used as such?

>
>It may well be also that a person may be more valuable when mobile then
>when crippled.

Already postulated, Mr Plinston.

> 
>
>But reading a book does not make blank pages into entertainment.

Not blank, Mr Plinston, printed.  Reading a book makes the configurations
of white and not-white spaces into something interpreted; if the book
cannot be read - for whatever reason, whether because of ignorance or
degraded page-quality - then its value, by the definition given above, is
less.

>The
>_printing_ of a book adds value to the paper, the reading of it makes
>no difference to the book, except wear and tear.

I do not know what makes a difference to a book, Mr Plinston; the question
is one of 'value', which is, I believe, a condition generated by human
beings.

> 


>You should take that up with Howard who was the one who put numbers of
>dollars to his book.
>

from
<[url]http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/e3089017a9e87658?dmode=source[
/url]>

--begin quoted text

Using a book does not add value _to_the_book_. In fact it *detracts value*
as can easily be seen by the fact that used books sold in garage sales, or
even on amazon, *fetch much reduced prices* compared to new unused books.

--end quoted text

(emphases added)

Your words, Mr Plinston, and they appear to equate price and value.
Second request, then: you seem to be equating price and value here; it
might be that we are using different definitions.  I've cited the one that
I feel is applicable to the situation and its source; might you be so kind
as to cite the one you are using and where you found it?

DD

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e2pu48$9so$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
> Are you saying that the
> value of stick-as-crutch exists in the stick before anyone knows it can be
> used as such?
[...]
> you seem to be equating price and value here; it
> might be that we are using different definitions.  I've cited the one that
> I feel is applicable to the situation and its source; might you be so kind
> as to cite the one you are using and where you found it?

When I first brought up all this zero-sum stuff, it was in the context
of economics. Specifically, I had said something along the lines of "Every
time I earn $1, someone out there must have lost $1." and the statement was
made to argue that the concept of inheritance will hurt your descendants in
the long run. While it's interesting to think about, I didn't mean for my
statement to imply anything about conservation of matter in the universe, or
the laws of thermodynamics and entropy.

I had initially equated the value of something with its price for
simplicity. More specifically, I was under the belief that the agreed upon
definition of "value" in the context of economics is "whatever the market is
willing to pay." [*] So the value of a book is whatever price (primarily in
dollars) at which people are willing to pay to buy it. I guess for an object
in a code library, before it exists, there's some platonic ideal of it in
your mind, and you decide you want it, even though it doesn't exist yet. So
its value (although it doesn't exist) is however much effort you were
willing to put to write it. Once it exists, and you distribute it for "free"
on the Internet, its value is whatever amount of effort others are willing
to put into reading your documentation and learning how to use it.

So under this definition, the price (and thus the value) of things can
fluctuate over time. But usually, as economists, we're not interested in the
"absolute value" of things, but rather the relative value. Let's say I have
2 chickens, and you have 2 ducks, and "the market" has determined that the
value of a duck is $20, and the value of a chicken is $20. We want to trade
with each other, but we don't actually have any currency, so I give you one
of my chickens, and in exchange, you give me one of your ducks.

Suddenly, hyperinflation occurs, and ducks are now worth $200, and
chickens are now worth $200. Are we now $360 richer? Perhaps, but I can
still only get 1 duck for my each of my chickens and vice versa.

I'm suppose that, by definition, if we're only interested in relative
value, then the total value MUST be zero-sum (or at the very least
constant). That is, no matter what everyone owns, we would always calculate
relative value by taking the aggregation of all things owned, and define
their summed value to be 1 (or some other constant value), and then define
each individual item to have some value relative to that.

It's sufficient, I think, for "the game" to be constant-value, as
opposed to zero-sum, for the "inheritance hurts descendants" argument to
work. But just for fun, I think I can still work in the possibility for our
world to be economically zero-sum. All that means is that the constant
mentioned above would have to be 0 (i.e. the sum of the value of all things
is zero). The only way this would be possible is if nothing existed
(empirical evidence shows this not to be the case), or if it were possible
for things to have negative value.

Is it possible for someone to have something that they would be willing
to pay to get rid of? A few things come to mind: trash, debt, crime,
disease. Imagine for example, that a company builds a factory that makes
lots of money, but as a side effect causes polution and sickness in the
people living around it. In a sense, the factory is taking the people's
cleanliness and health, and turning it into cash.

The people later have to pay money to have doctors and environmentalist
to buy back their cleanliness and health.

[*]: It turns out economists do not agree on a definition of "value". See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_%28economics%29

- Oliver

In article <Az44g.811$nq3.409@clgrps12>,
Oliver Wong <owong@castortech.com> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e2pu48$9so$1@reader1.panix.com..
. 
>[...] 

[snip]

>But usually, as economists, we're not interested in the
>"absolute value" of things, but rather the relative value.

I can barely speak for my *own* interests, Mr Wong, let alone those of 'we
economists'... but this 'relative value' you posit seems remarkably close
to the definition I repeatedly cited.

[snip]

>[*]: It turns out economists do not agree on a definition of "value". See
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_%28economics%29

It turns out, Mr Wong, that people other than economists may have
disagreements which can be traced to nothing more than differences in
definition.  I cited one and have asked others to do the same, so that
such difference might come to light more readily.

DD

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:29:52 GMT, "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com>
wrote:

>    So under this definition, the price (and thus the value) of things can
>fluctuate over time. But usually, as economists, we're not interested in th
e
>"absolute value" of things, but rather the relative value. Let's say I have
>2 chickens, and you have 2 ducks, and "the market" has determined that the
>value of a duck is $20, and the value of a chicken is $20. We want to trade
>with each other, but we don't actually have any currency, so I give you one
>of my chickens, and in exchange, you give me one of your ducks.

The reason you make the trade is because each of you is valuing the
other person's foul as more valuable.    Each of you is gaining by the
trade.

And let's say the trade was to get breeding stock - each of you made a
long term gain that can be counted with every chick hatched.

Posted Via mcse.ms Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mcse.ms

On 27 Apr 2006 20:35:11 -0700, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:

>Not at all. I have been saying all along that using a stick as a
>crutch, or to beat people with, or to prop up the clothes line does not
>make the stick more valuable. It is just a stick and if it gets thrown
>on the fire you can go and get another. Now, when you _can't_ get
>another then that would make it be more valuable.

But it seems that you haven't convinced anybody to agree with you.