> On Aug 25, 2023, at 9:39 AM, Bill Degnan via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org>
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 9:27 AM Paul Koning via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 24, 2023, at 9:29 PM, Sellam Abraham via cctalk <
>> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>> It's obvious that the Apple 1 has the value it does not so much for its
>>> technology but for what it represents, and that's all that matters.
>>
>> This reminds me of the observation that economics is a branch of
>> psychology: the value of stuff is subjective and personal. (It has to be,
>> because in a trade each person exchanges an item for a different item
>> valued more highly *by that person*.) So arguing about it doesn't get you
>> very far.
>>
>> paul
>>
>>
> Paul,
> Just to add my thoughts, not to argue....to me economics is based on supply
> and demand. It's not as a science "subjective". Economists can only in
> hindsight quantify the impact of subjective factors on supply and demand
> after they actually have occurred. From that, one tries to predict the
> future taking past subjective impact to determine future economic
> outcomes, momemtum, etc.
Yes, but I wasn't talking about that aspect, but about the concept of "value".
Communist pseudo-economics notwithstanding, value is in the eye of the
beholder. As I said, it must be: if I sell you my computer for $100, and you
buy it for that, it means I value $100 more than the computer, and you value
the computer more than $100.
paul
