Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: Obscenely Wealthy
No, it doesn't. The whole point is that money "normalizes" values. It shifts from "what I want", and "what you want", and "what he wants" into "what we want".
I'm afraid it does. The theory of value you're describing assumes that value can and should be normalized in the first place, that value and demand are the same thing, and that value is only measurable in terms of money (which implies that what money cannot buy is not valuable).
But not all values can be either normalized or measured in monetary terms. And demand can be influenced (through advertising or individual charisma) without changing value in an objective sense. There is a difference between value and the appearance of value.
When you say that someone who's paid a lot doesn't "add much to society", you're saying that you don't value their contribution - but clearly somebody values it enough to pay them.
That's a tautology; What you're saying is that people pay for what they find valuable, but that things must be valuable if people will pay for them.
When it comes to people's contributions, the fact that somebody pays them just means that somebody with even more money values their contribution; it does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the majority. Just because those with power value certain contributions over others, does not mean those contributions benefit everybody equally.
That's just ridiculous. Anyone can do what janitors do.
Yes, but they don't. Anyone may be able, but not everyone is willing to do what janitors or garbage men do. It's not skilled work, but it's dirty and difficult and society could not function without it. That makes it just as valuable as what an executive does.
Scarce things are more valuable because they're scarce. People with strong leadership skills are far more scarce than people with janitorial skills
That's not true--plenty of scarce things have low value. Sociopaths are rare, but are hardly valued by society. Also, a lot of scarce skills could be learned by a lot more people if they had equal access to education. Of course, that wouldn't work very well because if everybody were trained to be a "leader" there'd be no one to do the work.
It's not your, individual, desires that are relevant. Your desires aren't those of society as a whole.
They are relevant--society as a whole is made up of individual opinions. The fact is, neither of us is qualified to speak of what society as a whole wants, it's immeasurable (even though economics tries).
But if what you're saying is true, and that only collective desires matter, then what you're effectively saying is that this self-justifying status quo--that the entire system of western economics itself--is socially defined. That means that any number of alternative systems could function equally well or perhaps better in its place, if enough people believed it were possible.
RSS
RE: Obscenely Wealthy
That really depends on your theory of value. A lot of people make a lot of money without really adding much to society--at least, not adding any more than many other people who are not paid nearly as much.
No, it doesn't. The whole point is that money "normalizes" values. It shifts from "what I want", and "what you want", and "what he wants" into "what we want".
When you say that someone who's paid a lot doesn't "add much to society", you're saying that you don't value their contribution - but clearly somebody values it enough to pay them. Moreover, that somebody themselves has enough money (has generated sufficient value) to do so.
I don't believe money always (or even often) flows to those who produce the most desired products. If it did, janitors, sewer workers, and garbage men would make a lot more than corporate executives or politicians.
It's not your, individual, desires that are relevant. Your desires aren't those of society as a whole.
Janitors, sewer workers, and so on, don't produce more value than corporate executives or politicians. That's just ridiculous. Anyone can do what janitors do. Very few can run a successful company. Scarce things are more valuable because they're scarce. People with strong leadership skills are far more scarce than people with janitorial skills.
View Full Discussion