# News & Current Events > Economy & Markets >  Value - Subjective vs. Objective

## Steven Douglas

From another thread.  I maintain that all economic value is inherently and by definition subjective by virtue of the fact that human judgments (personal feeling or opinions) are involved.   Roy believes that a matter becomes immediately objective any time more than one person's (divergent) judgment is involved. 

Before continuing, following are two very clear and well understood mainstream definitions of objective and subjective:




> *OBJECTIVE* [SOURCES]
> 
> (of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts
>     - historians try to be objective and impartial
> 
> Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual
>     - a matter of objective fact
> 
> *SUBJECTIVE* [SOURCES]
> Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.


Here is the actual exchange we had:




> What do you think market value is, if not abject subjectivity even in its freest and most idealized form. 
> 			
> 		
> 
> It's the amount a thing can be exchanged for.  That requires two divergent opinions of its value, and therefore inherently cannot be subjective, as anything that is subjective is by definition ONE person's opinion.
> ....
> As soon as more than one person's input is required, the result is not subjective by definition.


This is unadulterated poppycock.  Objectivity is not relevant to the number of persons giving input.  It is based, rather, on whether or not any input was influenced in any way by personal feelings or opinions.   

There is no such thing as "objective value" unless you are talking about physical or other values that are independent of personal feelings or opinions.   

*EXAMPLE 1* - OBJECTIVE VALUE(s) involving two or more persons:
I test the physical properties of an object and record those values.  A scientist on the other side of the Earth performs the same tests independently and comes up with identical values.   That would be an example of objective value, but has nothing to do with whether or not a second test was performed, but only the fact that no personal feelings or opinions were involved. 

*EXAMPLE 2* - SUBJECTIVE VALUE involving two or more persons:
The asking price for my widget is $10, but the prospective buyer has a bid price of $5.  We negotiate and split the difference, establishing a market price of $7.50 for that one item.  Roy believes that this is objective ("by definition" according to Roy) simply because it required a second opinion, or was arrived at between two diverging opinions.  This is nonsense. The difference between two subjective opinions does not establish one objective fact.  All they are is a subjective compromise, especially given that any OTHER TWO could arrive at a different compromise, giving completely different values.  The "fact" that a transaction was made, and the "fact" that a price was a agreed upon may be objectively witnessed, but the actual value is not a fact, but a subjective value derived from two equally subjective inputs.  In all cases it would by definition be subjective because the entire end result was derived from personal feelings and opinions.  

LAW: Two or more personal feelings or opinions do not, and cannot, make one objective fact.

Also, let's dispense preemptively with the idea that an opinion or decision can be thought of as objective simply because third parties everywhere could independently observe and witness such an opinion or decision.  If someone said, "That is a beautiful piece of art.", this entirely subjective opinion would not suddenly become an objective opinion on the basis that a billion people could all independently verify that this was in fact stated.  The observation would be objective, but the opinion itself would remain forever subjective.  Likewise, if someone said, "That is a beautiful piece of art" and someone else said, "That is an ugly piece of art", an "objective fact" about the art's aesthetic value could NOT be found between those two completely subjective and diverging opinions. 

So what do you all think - is there ANY way that you can conceive whereby market value can be considered objective?  Going by the definitions of objective and subjective, is there ever a case where market value is established wherein it cannot be traced to a subjective normative ("should" based on personal feelings or opinions)?

----------


## Acala

Actually, in a free exchange, their is no agreement on the value of that which is exchanged.  All you can say about the exchange is that person A SUBJECTIVELY and UNILATERALLY values his goods less than he values the goods owned by person B, and person B, also SUBJECTIVELY and UNILATERALLY, values his own goods less than he values the goods owned by person A.  One cannot assume that they agree on the value of anything.  Indeed, they must have at least a slight disparity of valuation or the exchange would not take place at all.

If I trade my horse for your cow, you must value my horse more than your cow while I value your cow more than my horse.  We don't agree that my horse and your cow are of the same value.  In fact, I might think I am getting a screaming deal and that your cow is worth WAY more than my horse and you might think my horse is worth WAY more than your cow.

----------


## rpwi

> *EXAMPLE 2* - SUBJECTIVE VALUE involving two or more persons:
> The asking price for my widget is $10, but the prospective buyer has a bid price of $5.  We negotiate and split the difference, establishing a market price of $7.50 for that one item.  Roy believes that this is objective ("by definition" according to Roy) simply because it required a second opinion, or was arrived at between two diverging opinions.  This is nonsense. The difference between two subjective opinions does not establish one objective fact.  All they are is a subjective compromise, especially given that any OTHER TWO could arrive at a different compromise, giving completely different values.


This is actually a fairly interesting point...  Certainly the 'equilibrium price' becomes no more objective when three people are involved...4...10, 100, etc...  I think in a real life economy, this is where the importance of bargaining power kicks in.  That would be the x-factor that determined where the diverging opinions met.

----------


## Xhin

Objective value is possible if you're exchanging two things that are objectively equal -- for example a 6-inch block of steel for a 6-inch block of steel. That would however be completely pointless.

----------


## Roy L

> I maintain that all economic value is inherently and by definition subjective by virtue of the fact that human judgments (personal feeling or opinions) are involved.


But in fact, that is just stupid garbage.  You could with equal "logic" claim that the prices paid for original artworks are subjective because human judgments are involved.  It's just stupid twaddle.  In fact, a price paid in an actual transaction is a fact of objective reality.  That proves your major premise is false, and your whole "argument" therefore fails immediately.



> Roy believes that a matter becomes immediately objective any time more than one person's (divergent) judgment is involved.


No, you are lying about what I plainly wrote.  I said anything that REQUIRES more than one person's opinion cannot be SUBJECTIVE.



> Before continuing, following are two very clear and well understood mainstream definitions of objective and subjective:


But in fact, here is what _YOUR OWN SOURCES_ say:

sub·jec·tive  (sb-jktv)
adj. 1. a. Proceeding from or taking place in _a person's_ mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
b. *Particular to a given person*; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily _introspective_.
3. *Existing only in the mind*; illusory.
4. Psychology _Existing only within the experiencer's mind_.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subjective

sub·jec·tive  [suhb-jek-tiv]
adjective
1. existing in the mind; _belonging to the thinking subject_ rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of _an individual_; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3.
placing excessive emphasis on _one's own_ moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4. Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective

"Subjective" does not mean merely something that is "_based on or influenced by_ personal feelings, tastes, or opinions," but something that is _NOTHING BUT_ an individual's feelings, tastes, or opinions.  The prices paid for securities in the stock market are certainly facts of objective physical reality, even though they are also certainly based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.  Your definition is therefore simply false.



> This is unadulterated poppycock.


It is fact.



> Objectivity is not relevant to the number of persons giving input.


But *SUB*jectivity _IS_.

Whenever your erroneous claims about subjective value come up, you always have to commit the false dichotomy and strawman fallacies: you always have to claim that if something is not objective it must be subjective, and vice versa, and that as I have proved value is not subjective, I must be claiming that it is objective.  That, however, is a lie.  You are lying.  Stop telling that lie, Steven.



> It is based, rather, on whether or not any input was influenced in any way by personal feelings or opinions.


Refuted above.  Stock market prices are objective facts that are certainly influenced by personal feelings, opinions, etc.  Your definition of "subjective" is simply false.



> There is no such thing as "objective value" unless you are talking about physical or other values that are independent of personal feelings or opinions.


The price paid in a transaction is a fact of objective physical reality, even though it is certainly "influenced by" personal feelings, opinions, etc.



> *EXAMPLE 1* - OBJECTIVE VALUE(s) involving two or more persons:
> I test the physical properties of an object and record those values.  A scientist on the other side of the Earth performs the same tests independently and comes up with identical values.   That would be an example of objective value, but has nothing to do with whether or not a second test was performed, but only the fact that no personal feelings or opinions were involved.


What happens when two scientists measure the same phenomenon -- an earthquake, for example -- and come up with two different results?  This happens all the time.  Does that mean the earthquake was subjective?



> *EXAMPLE 2* - SUBJECTIVE VALUE involving two or more persons:
> The asking price for my widget is $10, but the prospective buyer has a bid price of $5.  We negotiate and split the difference, establishing a market price of $7.50 for that one item.  Roy believes that this is objective ("by definition" according to Roy) simply because it required a second opinion, or was arrived at between two diverging opinions.


No, you are again just lying about what I have plainly written.  The price of $7.50 is objective because the widget trading for $7.50 is an event that occurred in objective reality.  It is an objective fact, as all actual transaction prices are.  If no trade took place, but you are both willing to trade at the $7.50 price, then that is not subjective.  It is the collective judgment of the market.



> The difference between two subjective opinions does not establish one objective fact.


<sigh>  Same old false dichotomy fallacy.  The requirement of two opinions means it is _not sub_jective.  It doesn't mean it _is ob_jective.



> All they are is a subjective compromise,


Oxymoron.



> especially given that any OTHER TWO could arrive at a different compromise, giving completely different values.


No.  The market finds the seller and buyer who are willing to clear the market at the margin.



> The "fact" that a transaction was made, and the "fact" that a price was a agreed upon may be objectively witnessed, but the actual value is not a fact, but a subjective value derived from two equally subjective inputs.


Nope.  The price paid in a transaction is an objective fact.



> In all cases it would by definition be subjective because the entire end result was derived from personal feelings and opinions.


Refuted above.  Yur definition of "subjective is simply false.



> LAW: Two or more personal feelings or opinions do not, and cannot, make one objective fact.


LAW: Anything that requires more than one person's input cannot, by definition, be subjective. 



> So what do you all think - is there ANY way that you can conceive whereby market value can be considered objective?


Same false dichotomy fallacy.



> Going by the definitions of objective and subjective, is there ever a case where market value is established wherein it cannot be traced to a subjective normative ("should" based on personal feelings or opinions)?


Irrelevant.  That is not how subjectivity is determined, as proved by YOUR OWN SOURCES, above.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> If I trade my horse for your cow, you must value my horse more than your cow while I value your cow more than my horse.  We don't agree that my horse and your cow are of the same value.  In fact, I might think I am getting a screaming deal and that your cow is worth WAY more than my horse and you might think my horse is worth WAY more than your cow.


+1, and so true. 




> This is actually a fairly interesting point...  Certainly the 'equilibrium price' becomes no more objective when three people are involved...4...10, 100, etc...  I think in a real life economy, this is where the importance of bargaining power kicks in.


No doubt. Every day is a new day, every transaction a new transaction, with nobody bound to to follow what went before.  

+1 would have happened, but I have to spread some reputation around first. 




> Objective value is possible if you're exchanging two things that are objectively equal -- for example a 6-inch block of steel for a 6-inch block of steel. That would however be completely pointless.


+ 1 and that hits at the opposite side of the coin that Acala alluded to; _exchange of like versus unlike items_.  It's not pointless at all, because not only does it serve as a proof of concept, it the very reason we refer to commodities as being *fungible* -- equal in physical properties (intrinsic physical values) that exist and can be independently, objectively and empirically measured.  It's why it doesn't matter to me that my bushels of corn from my futures contract come from Silo A or Silo B.  Unlike items, however, DO NOT EVER EQUAL one another.  Economic exchange of unlike items requires _at all times_ that subjective opinions or personal feelings be factored in, and once that happens, all objectivity is destroyed.   

And like Acala correctly pointed out, we are each only determining, subjectively and unilaterally, what we value of our own less than what we are valuing more in exchange.  A horse for a cow, or a cow versus a quantity of currency, it's all a subjective valuation of unlike items, and there is a disparity on both sides - with no agreement or there wouldn't be a trade (something I hadn't considered, actually).

Great points all, cheers!

----------


## Revolution9

I have to objectively say RoyL is FOS on this. Is that subjective? If more than myself hold this opinion then I guess it to be objective under his own banner.



Rev9

----------


## Steven Douglas

> You could with equal "logic" claim that the prices paid for original artworks are subjective because human judgments are involved.


Thank you, yes, that's true. The prices paid for original artworks are ALWAYS subjective (by definition) because personal feelings and opinions are involved.  




> It's just stupid twaddle.  In fact, a price paid in an actual transaction is a fact of objective reality.  That proves your major premise is false, and your whole "argument" therefore fails immediately.


Already preempted.  If you say "This smells wonderful", I can "objectively" state that you did in fact say that, but shifting the object to "the objective fact of my observation" won't make your original opinion any less subjective. 




> I said anything that REQUIRES more than one person's opinion cannot be SUBJECTIVE.


Source? Two subjective opinions can make for an objective fact?  That isn't based on any definition, Roy. You reasoned that one through for yourself with inexplicable leaps of logic, as you shift the object of focus (the opinions expressed) to the mere observation of opinions that were (always subjectively) agreed upon. 

To wit:




> "Subjective" does not mean merely something that is "_based on or influenced by_ personal feelings, tastes, or opinions," but something that is _NOTHING BUT_ an individual's feelings, tastes, or opinions.  The prices paid for securities in the stock market are certainly facts of objective physical reality, even though they are also certainly based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.  Your definition is therefore simply false.


Only in Roy L.'s Nation of Conflation.

I OBSERVE (as an objective fact of physical reality) that certain prices were paid for securities.  Merely observing or recorded that a given price was paid for certain securities, that is an objective fact, which is wholly separate from the basis upon which those prices were established, as they were all based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.  

Again, I OBSERVE (and actually record you stating on camera) that you think dog crap smells delightful - wonderful. MY OBSERVATION, and that recording, is an objective fact of physical reality -- not the opinion that was recorded, which was anything but.

----------


## rpwi

> I have to objectively say RoyL is FOS on this. Is that subjective? If more than myself hold this opinion then I guess it to be objective under his own banner.


  There are two components to Roy's arguments.  The first is that private property in land can create unjust privilege.  The second is that a land tax is a just and necessary response to such.

Much confusion on the land issue (from my view reading these threads) comes from what I've seen as a conflation of these two issues.

While I worry about the abuses of a land tax and other issues...I can acknowledge separately that land in private hands can create privilege.  A logic experiment fairly simply illustrates this.

Maroon 10 sailors on an island.  The first sailor to land forms a quick government and gives himself the entire island as property.  The subsequent sailors arrive days later and are forced to the work for the first sailor in exchange for access to the fresh water, plants and animals. In such a case...private land has created privilege and unjust rent.  

There can be no doubt that private land does cause privilege...the question is how much, who are the benefactors, what are the possible remedies, and are the cures worse than the diseases?

----------


## Roy L

> I have to objectively say RoyL is FOS on this. Is that subjective? If more than myself hold this opinion then I guess it to be objective under his own banner.


You lied about what I plainly wrote.  You had to.  You had no choice, as you could not refute anything I wrote with fact or logic.

----------


## Sam I am

A lot of the time, there are metrics that can make value objective.

a 2gb memory stick is objectively better than a 1gb stick from the same manufacturer.  

Objective value can also be given to the cost of obtaining a thing.  A pack of microwave Burritos is objectively worth less than $3 because I can go to the store and buy one for less than $3 right now.

----------


## Steven Douglas

Roy's muddled confusion is as simple as it is highly explicable. Roy's logic:   

A) A subjective opinion can be observed and stated as an objective fact.  (not the opinion itself, but the fact that such an opinion was formed)

Therefore,

B) Subjective opinions can be become objective fact by objective observation.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> A lot of the time, there are metrics that can make value objective.
> 
> a 2gb memory stick is objectively better than a 1gb stick from the same manufacturer.  
> 
> Objective value can also be given to the cost of obtaining a thing.  A pack of microwave Burritos is objectively worth less than $3 because I can go to the store and buy one for less than $3 right now.


In both cases we can express it algebraically and eliminate all but the exchange of like items. 

In the case of the memory sticks from the same manufacture, assume first that both memory sticks are fully interchangeable with all systems to which either is compatible, and that both are of equal price.  Otherwise, subjective opinions are involved.  (e.g., I can get an extra GB for half the price more, but is it worth it to me? Do I need it?)  Once the subjective elements are removed it's only a matter of like quantities in exchange. Twelve 6" X 6" bricks is objectively more than six of the same bricks.

In the case of the burritos, you still have to remove subjective "personal feelings or opinions" components for it to be objective (e.g., microwave spot-eating convenience, price per burrito discount for buying in bulk). Even so, if: 

You buy 2 burritos for $3, while 
I buy 6 burritos for $3  (and we consider all other things equal)

Objectively, we can each cancel out the equal price paid, subtract two burritos from each side, and I will have 4 burritos to your zero.  Objectively it is more, but only because we are comparing like items.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Much confusion on the land issue (from my view reading these threads) comes from what I've seen as a conflation of these two issues.


A great many arguments, both in the real world and the internet, are basically a failure to communicate the actual topic being debated. For instance, a disagreement where one person says "the sky is blue" and the response is, "no it isn't, the grass is green." 

Now when we add trolls to the mix, the dishonest trolls will continue this type of debate ad nauseum, continually changing the subject and will throw in insults at the same time.

So then we have:

Person A: "The sky is blue".
Troll B: "No it isn't, the grass is green."
Person A: "No, I am talking about the sky and it's blue."
Troll B: "Ha, the sun is yellow, which proves you are an idiot. And you keep avoiding the question of the grass because you know you will lose that one too! You fail!"

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> From another thread.  I maintain that all economic value is inherently and by definition subjective ...


I agree. Subjective and relative.

----------


## rpwi

> Person A: "The sky is blue".
> Troll B: "No it isn't, the grass is green."
> Person A: "No, I am talking about the sky and it's blue."
> Troll B: "Ha, the sun is yellow, which proves you are an idiot. And you keep avoiding the question of the grass because you know you will lose that one too! You fail!"


A terrific analogy.

----------


## rpwi

> If I trade my horse for your cow, you must value my horse more than your cow while I value your cow more than my horse.  We don't agree that my horse and your cow are of the same value.  In fact, I might think I am getting a screaming deal and that your cow is worth WAY more than my horse and you might think my horse is worth WAY more than your cow.


The rabbit hole goes far deeper with this idea.  What you propose is the one of the most fundamental tenants of micro-economics is wrong.  Micro-economics rests on the premise of the equilibrium price theory...that two partaking parties can and do reach exact and perfect compromises.  If you've taken econ 102...you surely know the joy of doing these supply and demand graphs...  An econ professor who openly disagreed with the  equilibrium price theory would probably never get hired by a major university...it's that entrenched in the status quo.

Yet per your example, an increment of association exists that can not be objectively subdivided and proportioned...because it is co-dependent on both parties.  What does determine price?  Well supply and demand does a good job of figuring it out...to a point.  But then you get into a subjective grey area...and that's where bargaining power kicks in.  What determines bargaining power?  The realistic threat to withhold goods or service from exchange.  The participant most likely able to play 'chicken' the longest...will probably get the largest share of the 'increment of association'.

Indeed it is my belief that properly explained and analyzed, the subjective distribution of the increment of association in how it is determined by bargaining power, how the market values and acquires bargaining power, and how competition for bargaining power works...would be worthy of the Nobel prize in economics and would shake up econ 102 in classrooms across the world.

Lately, some economist have come close with game theory which is close to upending equilibrium price theory but nobody has connected the dots yet.  Games theory is very interesting and ties in closely to what we speak of.  There are many examples...but the premise is that participants face a contradiction in that they benefit from both participating and withholding from transactions.

A most apt analogy we would understand would be from the caucus battles we have been following.  If Romney, Santorum and Paul regional delegates all are at 33%...and only 50% can agree on a slate of delegates...then there is quite the dilemma.  The optimal situation would be for two camps to combine forces and split 50% of the delegates while locking out the third camp.  But the third camp can negotiate for a better ratio of delegates and get back into the bargaining table.  Such negotiations have no logical and stable compromise and are akin to a dog chasing its tail.   Basically the battle is over the increment of association, how it is distributed, and how it is controlled by threatening to withhold from participating (like how the Romney camp threatened to make a deal with the Santorum camp in Missouri's 5th district elections to get more delegates).  The real life market equivalents do exist which makes this so interesting.  In fact it might be argued that the business cycle may in some way be influenced by the battle over the increment of association.  Since the only way to exercise power is to 'go on strike'...done systemically, this would cause a contraction in wealth...until bargaining power was rebalanced and commerce ended its strike.  Put another way...a recession may end...when the factors of production obtain their desired ratio of the increment of association.

A tangent of the argument has been taken up by socialists...but their attitude has been wrong.  They have favored a command economy that obliterates everything and does not even properly acknowledge how the system works.  Furthermore the free market can and does effectively deal with this....as long as unjust privilege is not handed out by government.  If for example...government handed out a patent on the wheel to Ford...that would represent just such a unjust shift in bargaining power and would be the source of tyranny.  Yes...there will be ups and downs...but that is natural and and artificial statis is a bigger problem.

----------


## ProIndividual

I'm straight copping out here...it's both.

The highest bidder determines market value, and that is predicated on individual valuation via marginal utility. It's a subjective valuation that is objectively the value once the bid goes in. How? You are the only one (possibly) who sees the value as that high, but objectively someone has to bid higher to change the value of the item in the market. Therefore the price is both subjective and objectively treefiddy ($3.50..poker forum joke, nevermind).

Marginal utility vs labor theory of value takes longer to debate, in my mind  (although Occum's Razor kills that one quick too).




> A most apt analogy we would understand would be from the caucus battles we have been following. If Romney, Santorum and Paul regional delegates all are at 33%...and only 50% can agree on a slate of delegates...then there is quite the dilemma.


I use game theory at work (I play poker)...true this is (yoda voice), but complete it is not. 

See, game theory mostly operates on the idea you both have complete info of each other's moves, or at least finite ranges of moves. It also fails to account for position. For instance, whoever opens the negotiation effectively controls it. This why first-in vigorish, or aggression, is so important in poker. He who raises first or bets first often wins. So whoever makes the first offer in the negotiation for delegates will have the upper hand some percentage of the time longterm (expected value). Then there's the matter of complete vs incomplete info and ranges of possibilities...any wrinkle in the strategy is able to throw off the equilibrium, ie the unexploitable solution to the game. We also can't confuse unexploitable or optimal strategy for exploitive. If one camp moves the wrong way on a negotiation, there is an optimal or unexploitable game theory strategy and then there is a exploitive strategy that takes full advantage of this mistake. The problem with exploitive strategy is that it leaves you open to counter strategy, whereas optimal strategy doesn't.

In the example you gave, I'd need far more info to give a good strategy...but assuming perfect info and limited strategy sets, yes this can be a dog chasing its tail (minus the postional advantage of first-in)...or it can be fairly simple.

I wrote about voting for Obama being the smartest game theory move provided Paul loses and no one credible from the liberty movement runs a third party race that can win. Why? Because the Republicans losing in 2012 means a possible liberty candidate in 2016, versus a liberty candidate if they win in 2020 or 2024. Game theory dictates we vote Democrat as that is the best way to beat the Republicans and to maximize our votes (each vote we remove from the Repubs and give to Dems is 2 vote swing, that's 200% vote strength per vote). As you can see, "anybody but Paul" is irrational to me.

In this way, if any of the three candidates feel they are better off in the enemies camp for any reason, negotiation becomes not about winning, but EV. It's like metagame in poker. I might know a call on the river is losing call, but if it's cheap and the table will be together for a while, I'll usually make the call to see how the opponent played the hand. This is a negative expectation play longterm....for that play. But metagame shows how this is positive expectation move for the entire game overall. With that info I can make a much bigger score later that otherwise would not of occured. Hence playing to lose now can be playing to win later. This is especially true in tournaments where blinds constantly rise. Now time makes the value of the play automatically more valuable as the blinds inflate.

The same can be true of any game where the stakes get higher, so to speak, as the game continues. Since politics is a zero sum game, I'd venture to say this applies. Poker is a negative sum game, but essentially the same principles should apply (as the rake, house cut of the buy-in, or antes make it a zero sum game).

----------


## rpwi

> I'm straight copping out here...it's both.
> 
> The highest bidder determines market value, and that is predicated on individual valuation via marginal utility. It's a subjective valuation that is objectively the value once the bid goes in. How? You are the only one (possibly) who sees the value as that high, but objectively someone has to bid higher to change the value of the item in the market.


Here is the wrinkle... You used the term 'bidder'...and that's where the subjectivity comes in and ensures there can be never an objective result (if I'm understanding your argument correctly).

Auctions are interesting creatures...both the literal ones and the large abstract ones we partake in everyday.  What is the ideal outcome of an auction for the bidders?  To buy their items at the lowest cost possible of course.  So say there are 10 people bidding at a farm auction.  Say they are all interested in a tractor worth 100k.  But if they bid against each other...they could pay that or much, much more.  So what do they do?  If they are clever they form a 'bidder union' and collectively buy the tractor for one penny.  Then they haggle amongst themselves over who should get the tractor...for those that didn't they would collectively get a cash payment worth 100k.  The issue is...the proceeds will not be issued evenly...because each participant realizes that their participation is worth more than the payment...so haggling ensues in a dog-chase-tail scenario...and we can never really have an objective price for the tractor.   Those most desperate...will not risk being left out...and will settle for a below-average amount.  This is why bargaining power...or the ability to walk...is so important. The price of the tractors in general will probably go down if the buyers tend to group up...while the price will probably go up if sellers tend to group up.  Because everytime you group up, you increase your bargaining power over the increment of association.

Another mind game...is to auction say a 20 dollar bill.  A popular pastime in econ classes.  While most economist feel this will result in the dollar bill being bought at 20 dollars...this is incorrect.  The correct solution (obfuscated by the artificial context)...would be for the class to form a 'labor union' and buy the dollar for one penny...then split the proceeds.  How the proceeds are split would be vary depending on the bargaining of the individuals...but ultimately would be subjective.




> Marginal utility vs labor theory of value takes longer to debate


In my humble opinion...they are both wrong.  Marginal utility is in essence the equilibrium price theory.  But it leads to circular logic...because it needs to define price before it can define price.

The LTV is nonsense...as it assumes everything is a product of an individual's labor.  A simple mud pie disproves this.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> The rabbit hole goes far deeper with this idea.  What you propose is the one of the most fundamental tenants of micro-economics is wrong.  Micro-economics rests on the premise of the equilibrium price theory...that two partaking parties can and do reach exact and perfect compromises.


Perfect or imperfect, any repeatable level of probability might qualify as aggregate objectivity, but only only within that narrow window. This is where the circular logic you mentioned comes into play, because it required a window in the first place, and where did that window come from, what causes it to move, and how do you separate internal from external forcings?  

Also, the observation itself may well be objective (just the facts, Ma'am), NOT the source and means that provided the data, which is anything but objective.  Scientists who study riots can make all kinds of objective observations, and these can be verified empirically, written up in journals and stated as facts. That doesn't mean there is anything objective going on in the minds of rioters.  

That brings us full circle to the inescapable fact that we are averaging personal feelings and opinions, without which there would be no market.  The more subjective individual influences there are in a market the more perfectly competitive that market can be, which then equates to a more stable and even predictable market.  Where I think a gross error is made is when people confuse relative _stability_ with _objectivity_. A more fundamental error is made when an objective fact "_that an observation was made_" (e.g., "it is an objective fact that 4 out 5 housewives did indeed prefer the taste of Jif over Skippy") is then imputed as objectivity to the matter under consideration (ergo, supposedly objectively, "Jif tastes better than Skippy."). That, of course, can fall completely apart when you try for that same "objective" result in a country where most people loathe peanut butter. Which can be recorded and stated objectively.

Also, none of this would even begin to account for the natural cycles of goods and services like fads, fashion, technological innovations, music and other contemporary art, etc., which are dated and inherently subjective on all scales. These can be traced to individual feelings, opinions, tastes which are both forcings and feedbacks which influence other people's individual feelings, opinions, and tastes, but the entire curve can be self-reinforcing, up or down, even on the macro-scale.

----------


## Roy L

> Thank you, yes, that's true.


No, it's stupid garbage.



> The prices paid for original artworks are ALWAYS subjective (by definition) because personal feelings and opinions are involved.


No, that's just stupid garbage from you.  A price paid is a fact of objective physical reality.  Even an infinite amount of stupid garbage from you can never change that fact.



> Already preempted.


But only by stupid garbage that I already proved to be stupid garbage because it was stupid garbage.



> If you say "This smells wonderful", I can "objectively" state that you did in fact say that, but shifting the object to "the objective fact of my observation" won't make your original opinion any less subjective.


That is also stupid garbage, because the fact that my statement was made, and its contents, are facts of objective physical reality.



> Source?


*YOUR OWN SOURCES, AS I ALREADY* _PROVED_ *TO YOU*.



> Two subjective opinions can make for an objective fact?


When those two opinions stimulate a physical act, yes.



> That isn't based on any definition, Roy.


That is just another stupid lie from you, Steven.  I already _proved_ to you that *YOUR OWN SOURCES* agree with me.



> You reasoned that one through for yourself with inexplicable leaps of logic, as you shift the object of focus (the opinions expressed) to the mere observation of opinions that were (always subjectively) agreed upon.


If that meant anything, which it doesn't, it would be wrong.



> To wit:
> Only in Roy L.'s Nation of Conflation.


No, that is just more stupid garbage from you, as already proved.



> I OBSERVE (as an objective fact of physical reality) that certain prices were paid for securities.  Merely observing or recorded that a given price was paid for certain securities, that is an objective fact,


Thank you for agreeing that I am completely right, and everything you have said has been stupid garbage.

----------


## Roy L

> A lot of the time, there are metrics that can make value objective.
> 
> a 2gb memory stick is objectively better than a 1gb stick from the same manufacturer.  
> 
> Objective value can also be given to the cost of obtaining a thing.  A pack of microwave Burritos is objectively worth less than $3 because I can go to the store and buy one for less than $3 right now.


Uh-oh.  Now you're in for it.  You have identified some self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.  You will never be forgiven for that.

----------


## Roy L

> In both cases we can express it algebraically and eliminate all but the exchange of like items. 
> 
> In the case of the memory sticks from the same manufacture, assume first that both memory sticks are fully interchangeable with all systems to which either is compatible, and that both are of equal price.  Otherwise, subjective opinions are involved.  (e.g., I can get an extra GB for half the price more, but is it worth it to me? Do I need it?)  Once the subjective elements are removed it's only a matter of like quantities in exchange. Twelve 6" X 6" bricks is objectively more than six of the same bricks.
> 
> In the case of the burritos, you still have to remove subjective "personal feelings or opinions" components for it to be objective (e.g., microwave spot-eating convenience, price per burrito discount for buying in bulk). Even so, if: 
> 
> You buy 2 burritos for $3, while 
> I buy 6 burritos for $3  (and we consider all other things equal)
> 
> Objectively, we can each cancel out the equal price paid, subtract two burritos from each side, and I will have 4 burritos to your zero.  Objectively it is more, but only because we are comparing like items.


To be honest, when I read drivel like this, I marvel that you manage to get your shoes tied in the morning.

----------


## Roy L

> Roy's muddled confusion is as simple as it is highly explicable. Roy's logic:   
> 
> A) A subjective opinion can be observed and stated as an objective fact.  (not the opinion itself, but the fact that such an opinion was formed)


Wrong, inevitably.  The objective fact is not that the opinion was formed (it could have been stated insincerely), but that it was STATED.



> Therefore,
> 
> B) Subjective opinions can be become objective fact by objective observation.


Stupid garbage unrelated to anything I have said.

----------


## Revolution9

> You lied about what I plainly wrote.  You had to.  You had no choice, as you could not refute anything I wrote with fact or logic.


I never waste time with dead end alley gambits. I just call them what they are and move on. I ain't getting sucked into your BS.

Rev9

----------


## fisharmor

Now, I ain't a great economics student, but is everyone else OK with the fact that this entire thread conflates price and value?
'Cause I'm not.
They are not the same thing.... are they?  It seems to me that
a) they can't possibly be the same thing
b) Roy's confusion on the matter springs from a fundamental misapprehension that they are the same thing.




> A lot of the time, there are metrics that can make value objective.


No, prices are objective matters of fact when one party refuses to negotiate, as below.




> a 2gb memory stick is objectively better than a 1gb stick from the same manufacturer.


This has nothing to do with price nor value.




> Objective value can also be given to the cost of obtaining a thing.  A pack of microwave Burritos is objectively worth less than $3 because I can go to the store and buy one for less than $3 right now.


Except that when I go to the store, there are some microwave burritos that are $0.50 per, there are some that are $2.00 per, and there are some that are $5/6 pack.
These are all objective facts - there's a sign that says that the store will accept this number of US Dollars.  These facts have nothing to do with value.
(ETA: They do, they have to do with how much Wegmann's values their burritos.  And nothing to do with how *I* value burritos.)
I value microwave burritos at $0.50 per.  I therefore buy the burritos that match my concept of the value of a burrito.

Other people do not care for Patio burritos and therefore buy the upscale Wegmanns' brand at $2.00 per.  I don't know why.  Perhaps they like the taste.  Perhaps they think the ingredients are better.
But the fact that there are options proves that value is subjective.  Some people place very little value on cheap burritos and are unwilling to purchase them even for a low price.  Some others place very little value on expensive burritos and are unwilling to purchase them for the price asked.
But the prices, though they be objective, are only indicators of how much a person values something, and not the value itself.

When I was shortly out of high school I went to a fantasy convention and was looking at artwork for sale.
There was a particularly good painting that everyone was impressed with, and the sticker said this:
"Price: $10,000.  Yes, $10,000."
Now it was good, but I don't know if it was $10k good.
Surely everyone has run into this before?  It's common business practice: adding the "I really don't want to do this" price.
I've done it myself once or twice.
The seller or good provider doesn't want to complete the transaction, and therefore places incredibly high value on their completing it.

I was talking to some professional armorers two years ago (such a thing does exist for reenactment crowds) - one is an old salt and the other is in his 30s with a fairly successful business.
The young one was complaining about a particular type of helmet he makes, that he absolutely hates doing in stainless steel, but people keep asking for it.
"Well, how much do you charge?" the old armorer asked.
"$450," the young one replied.
"Well, how much money would make you want to make them?"
"Ahhhh..... uhhhhhhh....."
"Would an additional $1000 make you want to make one?"
"Uh....."
"Would an additional $2000 make you want to do it?"
"YEAH, I'd do it for an extra $2k."
"Then there's your price."

These guys didn't know anything about Keynesianism vs. Austrian economics, but they demonstrated the axiom here to my satisfaction.
The helm he was making is not subjectively worth $2450 to a whole lot of people - you can probably count on one hand the number of people in the world who would pay that.
So at the same time he both made sure practically nobody would order one, and also that when they did order one he would be getting what he valued his time at.
But the first part proves the axiom: he was guaranteeing never to find anyone willing to pay the "I don't really want to do this" price.
There can be no objective value to this item, because it is handcrafted by exactly one person in the world.  And let me tell you as a fellow armorer myself, other people could make it, but the subjective value of custom making a helm to exactly his specs (probably with nothing more than internet photos to go off of) shoots that price way past $2450 just in time figuring out WTF to do, and wasted materials.
So the young armorer's input is really the controlling factor here, and he obviously values it much differently than the buyers do.

I'm just really not sure how, once you separate price from value, it becomes anything other than axiomatic that value is subjective.

----------


## FindLiberty

I think my head hurts.

----------


## Acala

> A lot of the time, there are metrics that can make value objective.
> 
> a 2gb memory stick is objectively better than a 1gb stick from the same manufacturer.


I disagree.  If I don't have a computer, a memory stick is worth nothing to me regardless of its capacity.  Alternatively, if I am a computer professional and have literally five hundred memory sticks laying around cluttering up the shop, another memory stick might actually have negative value for me, regardless of its capacity.  So the hypothetical relative value of the two memory sticks would be rendered meaningless by the reality of subjective valuation.

What you are essentially saying is that more of any fungible good (memory, pig iron, electricity) is objectively of greater value than less of that good.  But that is not necessarily true.  You can speculate with a good degree of certainty that for someone who has a need for a particular fungible good, they will give greater value to a larger quantity of that good.  But even that is not necessarily true in terms of willingness to make an exchange (which is the only real measure in economics).  For example, suppose I need only 1gb of memory to contain a document that I will then give to a client and never see again.  How much more would I be willing to exchange for a 2gb memory stick than a 1gb memory stick?  Probably nothing, unless I thought the extra gig would buy some good will with my customer.  All subjective valuation.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> A price paid is a fact of objective physical reality.


Yes it is. It is recorded and can be objectively verified by anyone. The fact that it was paid is objective physical reality. The reason that particular price was paid, however, was entirely and forever nothing but subjective - with no way to make it otherwise. 




> ...the fact that my statement was made...
> *...and its contents...*
> ...are facts of objective physical reality.


...but you don't argue why "its contents" are also objective facts of physical reality.  You just slipped in there as a free rider. 

Using your logic:

A) Many have stated that Henry George was a crackpot. 
B) The fact that many have stated this is an indisputable fact of objective reality. 
C) Therefore the contents of their statements are also facts of objective reality which don't need to be argued separately, since they were included in what is already established as a fact of objective reality. Ergo,
D) It is an objective fact of physical reality that Henry George was crackpot. 

I honestly didn't think you would make it that easy for me, Roy, but thank you for proving to everyone, absolutely and conclusively, that this indeed the fatally flawed logic you are employing. You took the fact that a statement was made, which is indeed objective physical reality, and tried to include the contents of the statement itself, as if by osmosis, containment or inclusion it also could be made into an objective fact of physical reality.

----------


## Travlyr

Will RoyL be the first to reach 1500 posts with two red bars?

----------


## ProIndividual

> Here is the wrinkle... You used the term 'bidder'...and that's where the subjectivity comes in and ensures there can be never an objective result (if I'm understanding your argument correctly).
> 
> Auctions are interesting creatures...both the literal ones and the large abstract ones we partake in everyday.  What is the ideal outcome of an auction for the bidders?  To buy their items at the lowest cost possible of course.  So say there are 10 people bidding at a farm auction.  Say they are all interested in a tractor worth 100k.  But if they bid against each other...they could pay that or much, much more.  So what do they do?  If they are clever they form a 'bidder union' and collectively buy the tractor for one penny.  Then they haggle amongst themselves over who should get the tractor...for those that didn't they would collectively get a cash payment worth 100k.  The issue is...the proceeds will not be issued evenly...because each participant realizes that their participation is worth more than the payment...so haggling ensues in a dog-chase-tail scenario...and we can never really have an objective price for the tractor.   Those most desperate...will not risk being left out...and will settle for a below-average amount.  This is why bargaining power...or the ability to walk...is so important. The price of the tractors in general will probably go down if the buyers tend to group up...while the price will probably go up if sellers tend to group up.  Because everytime you group up, you increase your bargaining power over the increment of association.
> 
> Another mind game...is to auction say a 20 dollar bill.  A popular pastime in econ classes.  While most economist feel this will result in the dollar bill being bought at 20 dollars...this is incorrect.  The correct solution (obfuscated by the artificial context)...would be for the class to form a 'labor union' and buy the dollar for one penny...then split the proceeds.  How the proceeds are split would be vary depending on the bargaining of the individuals...but ultimately would be subjective.
> 
> In my humble opinion...they are both wrong.  Marginal utility is in essence the equilibrium price theory.  But it leads to circular logic...because it needs to define price before it can define price.
> 
> The LTV is nonsense...as it assumes everything is a product of an individual's labor.  A simple mud pie disproves this.


All I'm pointing out is that in an auction, and I assume there is a minimum bid here ("we're starting the bids at..."), the highest bid is essentially the market value objectively (the market value is an objective fact, as opposed to subjective opinion). You'd have to bid higher to change the value of the item in the market. So even though I fully admit the marginal utility of the item is individually subjective versus every other attainable thing in the market you could otherwise get with that amount of money (and your own personal preferences for each of those things and the bid item itself), it's top bid price becomes the ultimate objective value...it objectively sells at that value to you unless I can come in and out-bid you with a higher bid, therefore using my subjective valuation to change the objective value of the item. I might not even have any higher value in the item itslef...I might just have a higher utility in beating you in the auction and seeing you go w/o the item....but that's neither here nor there. 

As for auction unions...if this is the optimal startegy, then why don't people do this since they almost always tend toward game theory optimal outcomes given perfect information? Because there is an opening minimum bid price, and because individual marginal valuations based on utility won't allow it. People just don't go to auctions to buy things for the cheapest price...some just want to win. Again, this is neither here nor there, but it is apart of the valuation process for each person individually, which will result in an objective fact; the price at final sale - the highest bid. In the tractor example...if one guy needs the tractor, and so does another, but the other 20 don't, those two fellas will bid more...and even if they formed a union, both cannot get what they need - the tractor. So there isn no way the union works according to game theory where both gentlemen get what they require. They cannot split the tractor. So there can be union with one of these two participating but not both. And if you throw 2 more of the 20 bidders left who just want to win for the sake of winning, and still two more that collect tractors for the sake of a collection, you now have 6 people who are at odds extremely. Only one of the 6 can join the union with the other 16 remaining bidders. And that means the union is useless! Without all potential bidders involved, the union fails to do what it was designed to do. Hence, bidder unions never (or rarely?) happen in real life. This is also why single payer insurance plans for healthcare nationally fail. Eventually individuals with more money subvert the bargaining scheme and jump ahead of those for quicker or better service in the market...degrading and eventually defeating the anti-market scheme. It's also why in the prisoner dilemma a "no snitching" union never (rarely?) works.

Also you said the tractor was worth 100k before any bid took place, but the bid process had no minumum bid....so how do you know what it's worth? I'm assumuming you meant its usual commercial sale price was 100k. But even then, if you pay 100k for it in a trade (which is what a sale is) it's obviously worth more than 100k in most cases to the person buying it...hence the transaction. Here the value is subjective to the buyer, but the price is objective...that's why commercial sale price is a bad example for this discussion...price and value won't coincide. In an auction price and value should exactly coincide (to a point; more in a moment)...because the top bidder detremines their value for the item (although this doesn't mean it's their ultimate value, as they may have bid higher if forced by a counter bid; plus, they wouldn't buy it if the price they paid, even at top maxed out bid, wasn't less than their valuation subjectively) AND the price in the market is the exact same amount (given my caveats) as that top bid. In the end, we can never know that the value for that winning bidder is ever the topped out maximum value he held for the item...unless he is asked and says "that was the most I was paying, for sure". In that case, market price actually mirrors market value perfectly (well not really, or the trade never takes place...every trade had perceived profit even if there is none).

Since every trade essentially has a PERCEIVED profit, then really value is always higher than price...for both parties. But I digress...

This is why this discussion is so hard...unless we assume the bidder who won the auction was not willing to make another higher bid over a counter bid from someone else, and he somehow perceived no profit and yet irrationally made the trade (possible I suppose), we never actually know the value of the item...we only know the price for sure.

Now, as to auctioning a 20$ bill...if the proceeds were not split evenly, why would you engage in the union? Seems to me any non-equal split would lead to one person breaking the agreement. Why let 20 people pay 20cents for the thing, when it's worth 20$ (1$ each, or 80 cents profit each), and I'm only getting 75cents in a split? I can now bid up to $19.24 individually and get a better deal versus this union. If you won't pay me the full dollar share, I'll do just that....and if I am not out-bid, I'll make 1 penny profit (actually it would be 76 cents profit, but you know what I'm getting at). If I am out-bid, the 19 others will have to pay $19.25 for the 20$ bill...that's a 75cent split 19 ways, or about 4 cents profit each (if evenly allocated). I have more marginal utility in reducing their profits than getting any for myself in a perceived unfair split. It's worth 75cents to me to see them suffer. This might apply better if we were bidding on a 20,000,000 dollar bill. Then the marginal utility in the life changing money would make such a union more advantageous even with a non-even split. (But I'd open the negotitation and get mine, for sure  )

It reminds me of the time I had one piece of pizza left, and I was hungry and it was all I had. I went to the bathroom and begged my friends to not eat it. I came back and my firend was stuffing it in his mouth fast, so I couldn't get any. He had left 1$ on the table. I couldn't buy another pizza for that, so it was worthless to me even if it was a more than fair price for the slice given the total number of slices and the price of the pie. So what happened?

I took him by the throat and put him up against the wall. I pushed down on his lower jaw with one hand until his mouth opened. I took the half chewed pizza from his $#@!ing mouth with the other. I released him and then walked over the garbage can and threw the half chewed pizz slice away. I took his dollar and threw it at him and told him to get out of my apartment before I beat his face in. He left, shocked and astounded.

I had more marginal utility in seeing him not eat the pizza slice than I did in his fair price for it. His suffering was worth more to me than his money. I knew I couldn't eat the slice, I knew the dollar was pretty fair as a sale price, but my hunger (or pain, if you will) led me to see his pain as more valuable than the money or the food. I wanted to show him if he did what I begged him nicely not to do, even if he paid fairly for doing it, I'd treat him like a bitch in front of everyone. He never crossed me again...he knew better from them on.

This is why retributive justice can apply in some siutations unless the renumerative penalties are high enough. For instance, if he threw enough on the table to buy a whole pizza, I'd of said a few words, but would of just ordered anotherp pie and allowed him to eat the slice. If he threw enough money out to buy like 3 pies I would of laughed and said "damn dude, you can have the slice", and just ordered a pie and pocketed the difference. The proper marginal utility is important when discussing fair valuations and prices. Not everything is simple supply and demand, bids, etc.

This is why penalties for murder will never likely be purely renumerative in an anarchist society...not without encouraging some reataliation and vigilantism by the vicitim's loved ones. Some retribution must be handed down if we expect a non-retatiliatory situation (you know, a civilized system of orderly anarchist law). Incidentally, this also the major failing of our justice system...too much retribution, not enough renumeration...and it seems arbitrary, leading to not enough retribution and too much renumeration in some areas...it's a cluster$#@!.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I was talking to some professional armorers two years ago (such a thing does exist for reenactment crowds) - one is an old salt and the other is in his 30s with a fairly successful business.
> The young one was complaining about a particular type of helmet he makes, that he absolutely hates doing in stainless steel, but people keep asking for it.
> "Well, how much do you charge?" the old armorer asked.
> "$450," the young one replied.
> "Well, how much money would make you want to make them?"
> "Ahhhh..... uhhhhhhh....."
> "Would an additional $1000 make you want to make one?"
> "Uh....."
> "Would an additional $2000 make you want to do it?"
> ...


Awesome example. My daughter, who had been doing paintings for people on the cheap, didn't want to do them any more because "it wasn't worth her time any more". But she was being hounded by a half dozen people who loved her work.  I went through that exact same exercise with her, until she found the price at which she would be more than willing to continue - a full 400% increase in price, which she knew nobody in their right mind would pay.  To her shock, nobody cared. She didn't get a single no - EVERYONE said yes to her new price, and congratulated her for raising it.  But she screwed up.  She realized afterward that she didn't name the price she would be happy with. She thought she found the price at which everyone else would say no.  Now she was on the hook, wishing she had answered the right question honestly.

I bargained with Life for a penny,
And Life would pay no more,
However I begged at evening
When I counted my scanty store;
For Life is a just employer,
He gives you what you ask,
But once you have set the wages,
Why, you must bear the task.
I worked for a menial’s hire,
Only to learn, dismayed,
That any wage I had asked of Life,
Life would have willingly paid.
- Jesse Rittenhouse

----------


## Steven Douglas

Back to you, Roy.  




> A price paid is a fact of objective physical reality.


Yes it certainly is. It is recorded and can be objectively verified by anyone. The fact that it was paid is objective physical reality. However, the reason that particular price was paid was entirely and forever _nothing but subjective_ - with no way to make it otherwise. 




> ...the fact that my statement was made...
> *...and its contents...*
> ...are facts of objective physical reality.


...but you don't argue why "its contents" are also objective facts of physical reality.  You just slipped in there as a free rider. 

Using your logic:

A) Many have stated that Henry George was a crackpot. 
B) The fact that many have stated this is an indisputable fact of objective reality. 
C) Therefore the contents of their statements are also facts of objective reality which don't need to be argued separately, since they were included in what is already established as a fact of objective reality. Ergo,
D) It is an objective fact of physical reality that Henry George was crackpot. 

I honestly didn't think you would make it that easy for me, Roy, but thank you for proving to everyone, absolutely and conclusively, that this indeed the fatally flawed logic you are employing. You took the fact that a statement was made, which is indeed objective physical reality, and tried to include the contents of the statement itself, as if by osmosis, containment or inclusion it also could be made into an objective fact of physical reality.

Did I misstate the logic you are using?  Where (specifically - blanket assertions and dismissals are meaningless) did I misstate anything, and how, if at all, does your reasoning differ?  You honestly believe that pointing to the fact that a price was paid for an original work of art (objectively true as verifiable fact) equates to objectivity for the price itself (and note that I am using price, not value, but the same principle applies to value).  Is that correct?

----------


## Roy L

> Say they are all interested in a tractor worth 100k.


Nothing else you will ever say on this subject matters.  You just _proved_ that _YOU KNOW_ value is not subjective.

----------


## enter`name`here

I am at work so I only briefly looked over the thread but it seems to me you two are conflating the terms price and value. price is objective whereas value is subjective.

----------


## Roy L

> The fact that it was paid is objective physical reality. However, the reason that particular price was paid was entirely and forever _nothing but subjective_ - with no way to make it otherwise.


That is irrelevant, as already proved.



> ...but you don't argue why "its contents" are also objective facts of physical reality.  You just slipped in there as a free rider.


Because they are part of the event that actually occurred.  That needs no separate argument to establish.



> Using your logic:
> 
> A) Many have stated that Henry George was a crackpot. 
> B) The fact that many have stated this is an indisputable fact of objective reality. 
> C) Therefore the contents of their statements are also facts of objective reality which don't need to be argued separately, since they were included in what is already established as a fact of objective reality. Ergo,


So far so good....



> D) It is an objective fact of physical reality that Henry George was crackpot.


No.  You just committed an elementary fallacy.  The fact that a statement was made does not make the statement itself also a fact.



> I honestly didn't think you would make it that easy for me, Roy, but thank you for proving to everyone, absolutely and conclusively, that this indeed the fatally flawed logic you are employing.


Oh, don't be stupid.  That's not the logic I'm using at all.



> You took the fact that a statement was made, which is indeed objective physical reality, and tried to include the contents of the statement itself, as if by osmosis, containment or inclusion it also could be made into an objective fact of physical reality.


No, I did not.



> Did I misstate the logic you are using?


Obviously.  You substituted some stupid garbage you just made up.



> Where (specifically - blanket assertions and dismissals are meaningless) did I misstate anything, and how, if at all, does your reasoning differ?


You fallaciously applied a predicate at a different level from the one it actually applied to.



> You honestly believe that pointing to the fact that a price was paid for an original work of art (objectively true as verifiable fact) equates to objectivity for the price itself (and note that I am using price, not value, but the same principle applies to value).  Is that correct?


No.  Although in normal markets they will tend to be close, value is not price.  Price is an objective, historical fact.  Value is part of the relationship between a given market and an item available in that market: what the latter can be expected to trade for in the former.

----------


## Roy L

> I am at work so I only briefly looked over the thread but it seems to me you two are conflating the terms price and value. price is objective whereas value is subjective.


No, THEY are conflating value with UTILITY.  *Utility* is subjective, *value* is a relationship between a market and an item available in that market.  There is nothing subjective about it.

----------


## palm

> From another thread.  I maintain that all economic value is inherently and by definition subjective by virtue of the fact that human judgments (personal feeling or opinions) are involved.   Roy believes that a matter becomes immediately objective any time more than one person's (divergent) judgment is involved. 
> 
> Before continuing, following are two very clear and well understood mainstream definitions of objective and subjective:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the actual exchange we had:
> 
> 
> ...




The whole transaction is subjective, value is established by each party individually, and collectively. How can there be collective objectivity?

----------


## enter`name`here

> No, THEY are conflating value with UTILITY.  *Utility* is subjective, *value* is a relationship between a market and an item available in that market.  There is nothing subjective about it.


Then this entire debate is simply the result of different definitions of the term "value".  You equate value with price whereas steven equates it with utility value.  To be fair the word value isn't really used as a technical term, and economists such as Adam Smith have taken note of the different meanings of the word.



> What are the rules which men naturally observe in exchanging them [goods] for money or for one another, I shall now proceed to examine. These rules determine what may be called the relative or exchangeable value of goods. The word VALUE, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called "value in use;" the other, "value in exchange."


Therefor when Roy equates value with price and then says that Price is an objective fact in that it is observable to those not taking part in the transaction he is correct.  On the flip side steven is also correct when he equates value with utility, and says that the utility rankings of idividuals is a subjective fact. This whole debate is over definitions.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> The fact that a statement was made does not make the statement itself also a fact.


Thank you, I agree.  Another way of saying it, so that we don't tangent from "facts vs. opinion" to "objective vs. subjective":  

_"The fact that a statement was made is objective fact, but that cannot make opinions expressed in the statement objective."_

Market price is established on the basis of differing opinions expressed about the exchange value between unlike items.  It is still nothing more than two differing opinions, even though the fact those opinions may be recorded and can be stated objectively as historical facts. 

Now let's continue with that (assuming you don't disagree, which I doubt): 




> Price is an objective, historical fact.


Yes it is. An objective statement of fact about two opinions about two unlike things, which statement of fact does not make the contents of the statement itself objective. 




> Value is part of the relationship between a given market and an item available in that market: what the latter can be expected to trade for in the former.


Well, that's one moot way of saying it.  Whatever value is, it is the ever-subjective basis upon which all market price is established -- and exists subjectively at all times without regard to whether a market price is established.

Now if you'd like to get off price and talk value only?  Because that comes before price, and is what you are ultimately claiming is not subjective:




> You just _proved_ that _YOU KNOW_ value is not subjective.


You have not even begun to explain how that could be true.

----------


## rpwi

> No, THEY are conflating value with UTILITY.  *Utility* is subjective, *value* is a relationship between a market and an item available in that market.  There is nothing subjective about it.


But value can only be defined as a unit of measurement or a ratio...and it is that ratio which at a granular level is always subjective.

I do think relative value is objective as is a hierarchy of values.  Strand somebody on an island...what is the value of the coconuts he eats?  That's tricky because without a relative comparison, you can't quantify this.  Say he catches fish as well as coconuts.  While his needs for both are subjective (as all needs are), once the needs are established (even if subjectively constructed), there is an objective ratio which can be established that says he prefers coconuts 3:2 to fish and would apportion his effort accordingly.  That IMO is an objective ratio and objective relative value.

The issue comes in when another is stranded on the island.  Say each values coconuts and fish equally.  Say by themselves each 'produces' 5 coconuts and 5 fish a week.  If they specialize (aka trade) collectively they can produce 15 coconuts and 15 fish.  That is a surplus (or increment of association) of 5 coconuts and 5 fish.  How then can this objectively subdivided?  It can be objectively stated the ratio in which the individual personally values the coconut vs the fish.  But what objectively determines the trade ratio for the increment of association (or price or value)?

Sure...it could be split evenly...so each gets 7.5 coconuts and 7.5 fish but this is doubtful.  Assuming each party acts to maximize their gain, they will realize that only but by their participation did these extra units come about.  So one may demand that the 'increment of association' bet split 4 to 1...with the logic that  the other party must agree or they will be worse off for not trading.  It's quite the dilemma...  

So value can be objectively relative...  I can say I value food...I value food more than mud...fresh fruit more than spoiled fruit etc...  And even at exact ratios at a personal level.  But when it comes to barter, there can be no magic exact value that is objective because this involves multiple parties.  An objective range can be determined by a party.  You can say that a population values widgets at 80-100 dollars...but you can not objectively determine where between the 80-100 dollars the true value lies because this only determined by games theory and bargaining power. 

If the crux of your argument is that value is important because it makes land important, you are correct.  Land is scarce and has important relative value.  Disproportionate distribution by government can indeed lead to injustice as some are more able than others, merely by government's decree, to satisfy their need for land relative to other needs and their efforts.  But you can't make the determination that this particular piece of land is worth 10,023 dollars.  You can make historical observations...the current market may have appetite for the land in the 9k to 11k range...but an exact figure can not and will determined because the increment of association can not be objectively subdivided.  This is not a common argument...in fact I doubt a single person reading this thread agrees with this statement, but IMO this is absolutely the case of how the price works.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Say he catches fish as well as coconuts.  While his needs for both are subjective (as all needs are), once the needs are established (even if subjectively constructed), there is an objective ratio which can be established that says he prefers coconuts 3:2 to fish and would apportion his effort accordingly.  That IMO is an objective ratio and objective relative value.


That's where a very important distinction is ever-present, because we can objectively quantify a ratio with regard to any demonstrated preferences. So while I agree that any subjective matter can be objectively observed and quantified, the objectivity _is in the observation only_, and cannot ever be imputed to a subjective matter in question.  A scientific study can objectively reveal that X percentage of a given group showed demonstrated preferences toward one thing over another.  The study itself could be objective - not the preferences that are referenced by that study, which are anything but objective by definition. 

Thus, when we say that a man is observed to prefer coconuts 3:2 over fish - a fact that can be independently verified -  the objectivity is in the observer and the observation methods; the fact or means by which that ratio was measured, which can be independently verified without influence of personal feelings, preferences or opinions _on the parts of those making the observation._   This objectivity does not extend to the person(s) who actually established and caused such a ratio to come into existence in the first place.  The objective observer did not create the ratio, nor did the ratio come into existence objectively.  That ratio was 100% determined by demonstrated preferences, and is therefore anything but objective.

----------


## Roy L

> That's where a very important distinction is ever-present, because we can objectively quantify a ratio with regard to any demonstrated preferences. So while I agree that any subjective matter can be objectively observed and quantified, the objectivity _is in the observation only_, and cannot ever be imputed to a subjective matter in question.  A scientific study can objectively reveal that X percentage of a given group showed demonstrated preferences toward one thing over another.  The study itself could be objective - not the preferences that are referenced by that study, which are anything but objective by definition.


Gibberish.



> Thus, when we say that a man is observed to prefer coconuts 3:2 over fish - a fact that can be independently verified -  the objectivity is in the observer and the observation methods; the fact or means by which that ratio was measured, which can be independently verified without influence of personal feelings, preferences or opinions _on the parts of those making the observation._   This objectivity does not extend to the person(s) who actually established and caused such a ratio to come into existence in the first place.  The objective observer did not create the ratio, nor did the ratio come into existence objectively.  That ratio was 100% determined by demonstrated preferences, and is therefore anything but objective.


ROTFL!!  You are claiming that the outcome of an election is also "anything but objective."  It's just (surprise!) stupid, dishonest garbage.

----------


## Roy L

> Then this entire debate is simply the result of different definitions of the term "value".


Right.  When we talk about a "land value tax," we are referring to the economic definition of value: what an item can be expected to trade for in the market.  This is an amount that competent appraisers can easily determine to a high degree of accuracy (if they couldn't, they would not be able to make a living).  It is the proposed tax base.  That is how the amount of the tax would be calculated.

Steven simply denies that any such economic sense of the word, "value" exists, claiming instead that the word, "value" can only refer to an individual's subjective opinion of an item's capacity to satisfy desire -- which economists call, "utility." 



> You equate value with price whereas steven equates it with utility value.


No.  Value is not price.  Price is the amount an item DID trade for.  Value is the amount it can be EXPECTED to trade for.  In most normal markets price and value will be close, but they are not the same thing.



> To be fair the word value isn't really used as a technical term, and economists such as Adam Smith have taken note of the different meanings of the word.


Smith distinguished "value in use" (which is now called, "utility") from "value in exchange" which, as explained above, is the *market* value that a land value tax would be calculated on.



> Therefor when Roy equates value with price and then says that Price is an objective fact in that it is observable to those not taking part in the transaction he is correct.  On the flip side steven is also correct when he equates value with utility, and says that the utility rankings of idividuals is a subjective fact. This whole debate is over definitions.


In a sense.  I am certainly willing to grant that "value" can be used by laymen in the sense of "utility."  That just isn't the sense of "value" that is relevant to discussion of a land _value_ tax.  Steven simply denies that there is any sense of "value" that means, "what an item can be expected to trade for in the market."  He won't hear of it, and refuses to talk about it, preferring instead just to claim over and over again that when economists use the term, "value," they do not mean the amount an item can be expected to trade for, but rather some individual's subjective opinion of its capacity to satisfy desire.

----------


## Roy L

> Market price is established on the basis of differing opinions expressed about the exchange value between unlike items.  It is still nothing more than two differing opinions, even though the fact those opinions may be recorded and can be stated objectively as historical facts.


Gibberish.  Expressions of differing opinions may or may not be a good guide to exchange value, depending on how reasoned and informed those opinions are.  A price paid, OTOH, is an objective fact.



> An objective statement of fact about two opinions about two unlike things, which statement of fact does not make the contents of the statement itself objective.


No.  A price is not a statement about two opinions.  It is a *fact* about *ONE* transaction.



> Well, that's one moot way of saying it.  Whatever value is, it is the ever-subjective basis upon which all market price is established -- and exists subjectively at all times without regard to whether a market price is established.


It's not subjective, because it is not just one person's opinion.

Consider a different example: a midway guessing game, where people pay to guess a number between 1 and 1,000,000 that is closest to the average of everyone's guesses, and whoever guesses closest to the actual average wins a prize.  Everyone is guessing based on their subjective opinions, but once recorded, each guess is nevertheless an objective fact.  Once the game is over and the winning guess is known, that number, too, will be an objective fact.  But there is another number involved, which is neither an objective fact nor a subjective opinion: the number that, before the game is even begun, is *most likely* to win the prize.  That is the number that everyone is trying to get closest to.  We don't know how much that number is, but after long experience, the carny running the game could probably make a pretty good guess.  However, nobody actually knows the number, so it can't be subjective.  It is, rather, an emergent property of the set of people who will enter the guessing game.  That number is like market value.



> You have not even begun to explain how that could be true.


I thought it was screamingly obvious: he couldn't have said the tractor was worth $100K if he didn't already know that value is not subjective, because "worth $100K" doesn't mean anything if value is subjective.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Right.  When we talk about a "land value tax," we are referring to the economic definition of value: what an item can be expected to trade for in the market.


Nice attempt at referring to ONE definition based on a _necoclassical_ theory of value, as if it was cast in granite - or tablets of stone.




> This is an amount that competent appraisers can easily determine to a high degree of accuracy (if they couldn't, they would not be able to make a living).  It is the proposed tax base.  That is how the amount of the tax would be calculated.


...and of course, what would holy canon be without the Priests of the Church of Neoclassical Valuations, the "competent appraisers" (their competence somehow in evidence by the fact that they have jobs, no less). 




> Steven simply denies that any such economic sense of the word, "value" exists, claiming instead that the word, "value" can only refer to an individual's subjective opinion of an item's capacity to satisfy desire -- which economists call, "utility."


No, I don't deny it exists. I just reject it. Just as I accept economist Ludwig von Mises' assertion that "value" (exchange value) is _always_ the result of subjective value judgements, you tend to kiss the rings of Adam Smith and others of like mind.  So what's new? 




> Steven simply denies that there is any sense of "value" that means, "what an item can be expected to trade for in the market."


Untrue.  What I reject (not deny exists as an economic theory) is that the sense of "value" as you defined it, and as "many" [neoclassical] economists use it, is neither universal nor is it accepted by all economists (e.g., again, Ludwig Von Mises and others). But that doesn't stop you from trying to canonize your favorite theory, and the definitions that suit your agenda, through ad nauseam repetition.

----------


## Roy L

> Nice attempt at referring to ONE definition based on a _necoclassical_ theory of value, as if it was cast in granite - or tablets of stone.


<sigh>  It long antedates neoclassical economics, and *is the relevant sense*.  You just want to change the subject.



> ...and of course, what would holy canon be without the Priests of the Church of Neoclassical Valuations, the "competent appraisers" (their competence somehow in evidence by the fact that they have jobs, no less).


The concept of value as the amount an item can be expected to trade for was around for thousands of years before neoclassical economics.



> No, I don't deny it exists. I just reject it.


I.e., you refuse to talk about the subject, and instead pretend that a land value tax is levied on some subjective opinion rather than on market value.



> Just as I accept economist Ludwig von Mises' assertion that "value" (exchange value) is _always_ the result of subjective value judgements, you tend to kiss the rings of Adam Smith and others of like mind.  So what's new?


<sigh>  Being "the result of" subjective value judgments is not the same as BEING a subjective value judgment, as already proved.



> Untrue.  What I reject (not deny exists as an economic theory) is that the sense of "value" as you defined it, and as "many" [neoclassical] economists use it, is neither universal nor is it accepted by all economists (e.g., again, Ludwig Von Mises and others). But that doesn't stop you from trying to canonize your favorite theory, and the definitions that suit your agenda, through ad nauseam repetition.


I.e., you refuse to talk about land value taxation, and will continue to attack what you call "land value taxation" on the basis of claiming that it means something other than what it does mean.

So what's new?

----------


## fisharmor

> ...and of course, what would holy canon be without the Priests of the Church of Neoclassical Valuations, the "competent appraisers" (their competence somehow in evidence by the fact that they have jobs, no less).


As I said, I ain't no economics expert, but I do recognize that the main utility of predominant economic thought lies in pushing people around and parting them from their wealth,
and the main utility of Austrian economics is in explaining observable events and trends.

When it comes to defining words, I trust the latter more often.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Expressions of differing opinions may or may not be a good guide to exchange value, depending on how reasoned and informed those opinions are.  A price paid, OTOH, is an objective fact.  
> 
> A price is not a statement about two opinions.  It is a *fact* about *ONE* transaction.


You jumped from value to price again, but let's go with it, as you are incorrect in the absolute.  It's not either/or. It's both.  And it's not just two opinions. It's two parties, each of which arrive at a different opinion about _the personal, subjective value relationship between two different things_. 

You are focused on "price" (singular), but you are apparently forgetting that *price is a relationship between two unlike things in exchange,* EITHER of which can, as a matter of first principles, be the reference for price.  I can say that I bought a pound of sugar for a dollar, just as the other party can say he bought a dollar from me in exchange for a pound of sugar.  The principle difference between what we label as buyer and seller is that the buyer is one holding the most common commodity in exchange.  Referring to price as currency only is only a matter of convenience, but as a first order principle in ALL economic theories, price is never a quantity of money in itself.  Without an exchange relationship, the term price is meaningless.  

Thus, every *ONE* transaction in a free market _requires_ two differing opinions about two unlike things in exchange. A price paid and recorded IS the result of those differing VALUE opinions.  IN EVERY TRANSACTION, one party is of the opinion that a given quantity of his own "thing" is worth LESS to him than a given quantity of the other party's "thing" -- _and vice versa_.  Two differing opinions about two different things, or no trade would be possible.  




> Whatever value is, it is the ever-subjective basis upon which all market price is established -- and exists subjectively at all times without regard to whether a market price is established.
> 			
> 		
> 
> It's not subjective, because it is not just one person's opinion.


There is absolutely nothing in the definition of *objective* that has anything to do with the number of *subjective* inputs. More than one subjective opinion does not make an objective fact, UNLESS you are speaking strictly from the POV of the objective observer - NOT the subjective participants. 




> Consider a different example: a midway guessing game, where people pay to guess a number between 1 and 1,000,000 that is closest to the average of everyone's guesses, and whoever guesses closest to the actual average wins a prize.  Everyone is guessing based on their subjective opinions, but once recorded, each guess is nevertheless an objective fact.  Once the game is over and the winning guess is known, that number, too, will be an objective fact.  But there is another number involved, which is neither an objective fact nor a subjective opinion: the number that, before the game is even begun, is *most likely* to win the prize.  That is the number that everyone is trying to get closest to.  We don't know how much that number is, but after long experience, the carny running the game could probably make a pretty good guess.  However, nobody actually knows the number, so it can't be subjective.  It is, rather, an emergent property of the set of people who will enter the guessing game.  That number is like market value.


You said, _"nobody actually knows the number, so it can't be subjective"_.  Which is nonsense. If each person in the game spun a roulette wheel or punched a random number generator button for their "guess", that might preclude subjectivity, because a wheel or random number generator is not subject to personal feelings or opinions. Furthermore, a random generator will throw out numbers like 1 and 1,000,000.  Most people in the game will NOT offer these numbers as guesses, because it would mean that they are guessing that everyone else is going to throw out that same number, and most people _will be of the opinion_ that these numbers won't be the average. You have people actually trying to guess the average of the aggregate guesses of others - and that involves _personal opinions_, regardless how ill-informed - and is therefore 100% SUBJECTIVE by definition.  Not knowing the final number is irrelevant, and not a determinant of objectivity or subjectivity. 

The RECORDING of each guess becomes an objective fact - NOT the guesses themselves, which are _forever subjective_.  Averaging those guesses to find the most common guess is still nothing but an averaging of SUBJECTIVELY GUESSED numbers.  Again, THE RECORDING of that average as a final number is an objective fact, but the final number itself is as subjective as the individual inputs required for a single final number as an output. 

Again, you err by confusing the _subjective participant_ with the _objective observation_, as if a subjectively derived result could take on the objectivity provided by the observer, based on the fact of its existence or observation.   

A riot is a mob "transaction", comprised of micro-transactions (fighting, breaking windows, looting, overturning cars, etc.,). The RECORDED FACT of a riot is objective. Analysis of that riot can be stated as objective facts. The damage caused by a riot can be objectively quantified.  The riot itself, however, is not objective at all.  It is 100% subjective, and does NOT become "objective" simply because we put numbers to it or stated, _as a matter of objective reality_, that it happened.  




> I thought it was screamingly obvious: he couldn't have said the tractor was worth $100K if he didn't already know that value is not subjective, because "worth $100K" doesn't mean anything if value is subjective.


Yes, it doesn't mean anything. AND the value is subjective. 

It's not "screamingly obvious" to you that simply saying something is "worth" something is actually meaningless except as a point of reference? And the way you stated it begs the question, "WORTH $100K TO WHOM?" Past market participants?  Market price (based on other people's past demonstrated preferences and opinions, no less) can serve as an ad populum appeal, among other things, for both buyers and sellers in negotiation, but no future buyer or seller is bound by any historical numbers. Their particular transaction is the point at which market price, which is never fixed, moves up or down, based on the subjective tug-o-war between buyers and sellers and their differing opinions about their respective willingness to trade a given quantity of what they are offering in exchange for a given quantity of what someone else is offering.

----------


## Roy L

> You jumped from value to price again,


No, I explained the difference between them, stop lying.



> but let's go with it, as you are incorrect in the absolute.


I am absolutely and indisputably correct.



> It's not either/or. It's both.


Incorrect in the absolute.



> And it's not just two opinions.


It's not any opinions.



> It's two parties, each of which arrive at a different opinion about _the personal, subjective value relationship between two different things_.


Nope.  It's an objective event.



> You are focused on "price" (singular), but you are apparently forgetting that *price is a relationship between two unlike things in exchange,* EITHER of which can, as a matter of first principles, be the reference for price.


Incorrect in the absolute.  Price is stated in the medium of exchange: money.



> I can say that I bought a pound of sugar for a dollar, just as the other party can say he bought a dollar from me in exchange for a pound of sugar.


Yes.  The only difference is that the latter statement is stupid, dishonest garbage.



> The principle difference between what we label as buyer and seller is that the buyer is one holding the most common commodity in exchange.  Referring to price as currency only is only a matter of convenience, but as a first order principle in ALL economic theories, price is never a quantity of money in itself.  Without an exchange relationship, the term price is meaningless.


Gibberish designed to help you not know facts.



> Thus, every *ONE* transaction in a free market _requires_ two differing opinions about two unlike things in exchange. A price paid and recorded IS the result of those differing VALUE opinions.  IN EVERY TRANSACTION, one party is of the opinion that a given quantity of his own "thing" is worth LESS to him than a given quantity of the other party's "thing" -- _and vice versa_.  Two differing opinions about two different things, or no trade would be possible.


Not responsive.  You are just saying something uncontroversial, and pretending it somehow refutes something I have said.  It doesn't.



> There is absolutely nothing in the definition of *objective* that has anything to do with the number of *subjective* inputs.


Irrelevant.  There IS something in the definition of SUBjective that disallows more than one subjective input, as I already proved to you by the quoted definitions from YOUR OWN SOURCES.



> More than one subjective opinion does not make an objective fact,


But it does remove the possibility that the result is subjective, as already proved.



> You said, _"nobody actually knows the number, so it can't be subjective"_.  Which is nonsense.


It is fact, by the definition of "subjective."



> Not knowing the final number is irrelevant, and not a determinant of objectivity or subjectivity.


Wrong.  If no one has that number in mind, it can't be anyone's subjective opinion.  You are just spewing absurdity after absurdity.



> The RECORDING of each guess becomes an objective fact - NOT the guesses themselves, which are _forever subjective_.


Lie.  Once recorded, a guess is an objective fact.  You know this.



> Averaging those guesses to find the most common guess is still nothing but an averaging of SUBJECTIVELY GUESSED numbers.  Again, THE RECORDING of that average as a final number is an objective fact, but the final number itself is as subjective as the individual inputs required for a single final number as an output.


Self-refuting gibberish.



> Again, you err by confusing the _subjective participant_ with the _objective observation_, as if a subjectively derived result could take on the objectivity provided by the observer, based on the fact of its existence or observation.


Self-refuting gibberish.



> A riot is a mob "transaction", comprised of micro-transactions (fighting, breaking windows, looting, overturning cars, etc.,). The RECORDED FACT of a riot is objective. Analysis of that riot can be stated as objective facts. The damage caused by a riot can be objectively quantified.  The riot itself, however, is not objective at all.  It is 100% subjective, and does NOT become "objective" simply because we put numbers to it or stated, _as a matter of objective reality_, that it happened.


Self-refuting gibberish.



> Yes, it doesn't mean anything. AND the value is subjective.


You are lying.  It self-evidently and indisputably DOES mean something, and it means that value is NOT subjective.



> It's not "screamingly obvious" to you that simply saying something is "worth" something is actually meaningless except as a point of reference?


No, it screamingly obviously ISN'T meaningless.



> And the way you stated it begs the question, "WORTH $100K TO WHOM?"


The market participants who can be expected to buy it at that price.



> Past market participants?  Market price (based on other people's past demonstrated preferences and opinions, no less) can serve as an ad populum appeal, among other things, for both buyers and sellers in negotiation, but no future buyer or seller is bound by any historical numbers. Their particular transaction is the point at which market price, which is never fixed, moves up or down, based on the subjective tug-o-war between buyers and sellers and their differing opinions about their respective willingness to trade a given quantity of what they are offering in exchange for a given quantity of what someone else is offering.


Not responsive.

----------


## enter`name`here

@roy: if I own a plot of land that I value subjectivly at 100k but plots near me have sold for 50k what is its objective value?

----------


## Steven Douglas

> ...two parties, each of which arrive at a different opinion about the personal, subjective value relationship between two different things.
> 			
> 		
> 
> Nope.  It's an objective event.


Gibberish assertion with no explanation or argument offered. (see that, Roy? I not only assert, I also state why)




> You are focused on "price" (singular), but you are apparently forgetting that *price is a relationship between two unlike things in exchange,* EITHER of which can, as a matter of first principles, be the reference for price.
> 			
> 		
> 
> Incorrect in the absolute.  Price is stated in the medium of exchange: money.


Self-contradictory while not contradicting me at all, and unresponsive to the salient point.  Price is indeed stated in the medium of exchange. This could be denominated in paper, sugar, tobacco, gold, silver, or anything else as a matter of first principles.  The main point, which you did not address, is that price is *ALWAYS in relation to an unlike thing in exchange*.




> There IS something in the definition of SUBjective that disallows more than one subjective input, as I already proved to you by the quoted definitions from YOUR OWN SOURCES.


Pointing generally to past assertions (no quote, no link, no specific source?) and non-existent arguments doesn't qualify as a response. But let's go with what you said in the context of that response. 

There is _nothing_ in the definition of SUBjective (USING MY OWN SOURCES) that disallows more than one subjective input. If a thing is influenced by personal feelings or opinions, it is by definition SUBjective, because it is, as a matter of objective fact, now SUBject (to whatever degree) to those personal feelings or opinions. 




> More than one subjective opinion does not make an objective fact,                      
> 			
> 		
> 
> But it does remove the possibility that the result is subjective...


Correct - in fact, it _precludes_ objectivity, and guarantees that the result will be subjective by definition, since the result itself was_ influenced by personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions._




> It is fact, by the definition of "subjective."


Explain that. The "fact" that something can be subjective, and the "fact" that something subjective can be objectively observed and recorded as a matter of fact, does NOT suddenly make the contents "objective".   You have a tough time with that, I know, but hey, that's your mind. 




> If no one has that number in mind, it can't be anyone's subjective opinion.  You are just spewing absurdity after absurdity.


Let's expand what you said, using actual meanings and definitions in place of the words used, to see if that is true: 
*
If no one has [the final number] in mind, [their guess at this final number, the average of what the other guesses might be] can't be [their] subjective opinion.* 

Completely absurd on its face, and falsified by just _one_ example. Just one person playing the game decides to use the number 555,555, because 5 is her favorite number.  That alone causes her guess, and therefore THE ENTIRE RESULT to be _influenced by personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions.

_Contaminated. Forever subjective. 

You're trying to make people into random number generators, but they never are. *ALL guesses are subjective!* That these guesses may be factually and objectively recorded, and the "objective fact" that they were indeed made, does not imbue the guess itself with ANY OBJECTIVITY. *Ever*.




> Lie.  Once recorded, a guess is an objective fact.  You know this.


The reporting of "the fact of the guess" is certainly objective - provided it is accurately recorded without influence from personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions. The guess itself, however, is *FOREVER* subjective.  

You know what's funny about all of this?  Your little exercise is nothing new in science, and is well established.  Subjective Probability (averaging aggregate guesses being one example) is inherently subjective, because it is based on guesses!  Objective Probability deals only with probability on basis of facts, experimentation, analysis, etc., that are not (by definition) influenced by personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions.

You can ask a million people who is going to win the Superbowl twenty years from now, and their GUESSES can be FACTUALLY, OBJECTIVELY recorded.  That won't make their guesses objective -- not even when some of those guesses happen to coincide with what later becomes fact in twenty years.  Making the outcome self-fulfilling (the guesses are used to derive the actual "winning" number) won't make those guesses OR that number anything but _influenced by personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions._ 




> Self-refuting gibberish. Self-refuting gibberish. Self-refuting gibberish. You are lying.  It self-evidently and indisputably DOES mean something, and it means that value is NOT subjective. No, it screamingly obviously ISN'T meaningless.  Not responsive.


FYI - None of the above turing machine responses count for anything, Roy.  You have to actually use words, and make coherent arguments. Until then, my actual arguments are the ONLY arguments that are standing.


*MAKING IT VERY EASY FOR YOU - A SIMPLE IDIOT-PROOF TEST*

Take any recorded number that is in relation to anything at all, and ask the following question:  
*Was the nominal value influenced in any way by personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions? 
*
If so, it's subjective. By definition.
 If not, it's objective. Again, by definition. 

It really is that simple. 


*Now let's expand that to your obvious misapprehension. 
*
*A number is recorded as a fact and independently verified based on accurate examination and careful observations. * 
The observation/recording, the methods used and the observers involved were all impeccably objective, given that none of them were influenced in any way by personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions.  The _fact of the number_ is now indisputably a matter of objective reality._The number itself_, on the other hand, which indeed does exist as a matter of indisputable fact, must undergo its own test. NOT to determine whether it is accurate, or objectively known or recorded - but to determine whether the value of the number itself was influenced in any way by personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions?  IF so, the number itself -- as a matter of fact -- is subjective in origin.

----------


## MattintheCrown

> @roy: if I own a plot of land that I value subjectivly at 100k but plots near me have sold for 50k what is its objective value?


What you could sell it for, obviously.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> What you could sell it for, obviously.


Obvious to you, perhaps, given that you know what's in your own mind when you make such a simplistic assertion without any explanation.  

He asked about "objective value", of course, so I assume you're not conflating this with price. 

*Objective Value = What You Could Sell It For* is meaningless without an explanation - mechanisms, determinants, parties involved in that determination, etc., 

How does one determine "what you could sell it for", and who would objectively (free of ANY personal feelings, preferences, tastes or opinions, by definition) determine such a thing?  Would it be on the basis of historical prices, or would that only be known after the fact (of a future sale)?  Is there such thing a determinable "objective value" prior to a sale? How does that work, exactly? Expound on the mechanics if you would.

----------


## enter`name`here

> What you could sell it for, obviously.


ok,so I got it appraised for 56k yet after 1 month of trying the best offer I could get was 52k. what accounts for the difference? which is the objective value?

----------


## MattintheCrown

> Obvious to you, perhaps, given that you know what's in your own mind when you make such a simplistic assertion without any explanation.  
> 
> He asked about "objective value", of course, so I assume you're not conflating this with price.


Price would be what you *did* get for it if you sold it.




> *Objective Value = What You Could Sell It For* is meaningless without an explanation - mechanisms, determinants, parties involved in that determination, etc.,


No it's not.  It's a simple matter of definition.  Its value is what you can get for it.  That's what is meant by market value.




> How does one determine "what you could sell it for", and who would objectively (free of ANY personal feelings, preferences, tastes or opinions, by definition) determine such a thing?  Would it be on the basis of historical prices, or would that only be known after the fact (of a future sale)?  Is there such thing a determinable "objective value" prior to a sale? How does that work, exactly? Expound on the mechanics if you would.


The mechanics are irrelevant.

----------


## seraphson

Isn't everything in a "market" subjective? What is a market? Roughly; a bunch of goods/services. Why? Because they are demanded. Why? Because they provide a _benefit_. The benefit is subjective since it's based on one's opinion. These opinions are the root of a market.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Its value is what you can get for it.  That's what is meant by market value.


Who the hell said anything about market value?  That term was never used. He said "objective value" - and you didn't ask for clarification on what he meant by that, but read only "market value".  

Market Value has many definitions and qualifiers depending on the market. With a plot of land, it's not just what it _could_ sell for, but what it could sell for _in a local market at a given price_ within a reasonable period of time (e.g., 30, 60, 90 days).   In the real estate market, anything that sells too fast is thought to be too low in price, while anything that takes too long to sell at a given asking price is priced too high.  That's all part of the appraisal process (which is why I asked about the mechanics you incorrectly claimed were irrelevant)

Even then, what you described is Market Price, not Market Value.  Whatever something *does* sell for, if it sells, is its *Market Price*, which may or may not be _anywhere close_ to its market value.  




> Market Value Vs Market Price 
> 
> It is important to distinguish between Market  Value and Price. A price obtained for a specific property under a  specific transaction may or may not represent that property's market  value: special considerations may have been present, such as a special  relationship between the buyer and the seller, or else the transaction  may have been part of a larger set of transactions in which the parties  had engaged. 
> 
> Another possibility is that a special buyer may have  been willing to pay a premium over and above the market value, if his  subjective valuation of the property (its _investment value_ for  him) was higher than the Market Value. An example of this would be the  owner of a neighbouring property who, by combining his own property with  the subject property, could thereby obtain economies-of-scale. Such  situations often arise in corporate finance, as for example when a  merger or acquisition is concluded at a price which is higher than the  value represented by the price of the underlying stock. 
> 
> The usual  rationale for these valuations would be that the 'sum is greater than  its parts', since full ownership of a company entails special privileges  for which a potential purchaser would be willing to pay. Such  situations arise in real estate/property markets as well. It is the task  of the real estate appraiser/property valuer to judge whether a specific price obtained under a specific transaction is indicative of Market Value.

----------


## Roy L

> @roy: if I own a plot of land that I value subjectivly at 100k but plots near me have sold for 50k what is its objective value?


Value is not objective.  Price is objective.  Value is not subjective.  Utility is subjective.  I have explained this multiple times.  You will now commit another false dichotomy fallacy.

If you want to know your plot's indisputably non-subjective MARKET value, hire a competent appraiser.  If your plot is very, very similar to the nearby ones that have recently sold for $50K, then he will find that its market value is close to $50K, not $100K.

----------


## Roy L

> ok,so I got it appraised for 56k yet after 1 month of trying the best offer I could get was 52k. what accounts for the difference?


Maybe the quality of the appraisal, maybe the quality of your marketing effort, maybe something about the market.  The standard error in real estate appraisals is less than 5%, so yours is on the high end; but the errors do tend to be proportionally bigger on lower-value properties.



> which is the objective value?


Value is not objective.

----------


## Roy L

> Isn't everything in a "market" subjective?


No.



> What is a market? Roughly; a bunch of goods/services.


And people who want to buy and sell them.



> Why? Because they are demanded. Why? Because they provide a _benefit_. The benefit is subjective since it's based on one's opinion. These opinions are the root of a market.


Yes, and a difference of opinion is what makes a horse race.  That doesn't mean the animals are not objectively real.

----------


## Roy L

> Gibberish assertion with no explanation or argument offered. (see that, Roy? I not only assert, I also state why)


The context provided the explanation.  You just didn't read it.



> Self-contradictory


Lie.



> while not contradicting me at all,


Lie.



> and unresponsive to the salient point.


Lie.



> The main point, which you did not address, is that price is *ALWAYS in relation to an unlike thing in exchange*.


There's nothing to address.  Stop acting like your tautologies are some sort of argument.  They aren't.



> Pointing generally to past assertions (no quote, no link, no specific source?) and non-existent arguments doesn't qualify as a response.


I gave the sources, stop lying.



> There is _nothing_ in the definition of SUBjective (USING MY OWN SOURCES) that disallows more than one subjective input.


I already proved the definition you are relying on is not supported by other sources, and is blatantly false.



> If a thing is influenced by personal feelings or opinions, it is by definition SUBjective,


Garbage.  A runner's time is influenced by his personal feelings, but it is objective.  You stand refuted.  Try to remember that.



> because it is, as a matter of objective fact, now SUBject (to whatever degree) to those personal feelings or opinions.


Non sequitur fallacy.



> Correct - in fact, it _precludes_ objectivity, and guarantees that the result will be subjective by definition, since the result itself was_ influenced by personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions._


Stupid garbage unrelated to fact or to what I wrote.



> Explain that.


"Subjective" means internal to one person.



> The "fact" that something can be subjective, and the "fact" that something subjective can be objectively observed and recorded as a matter of fact, does NOT suddenly make the contents "objective".   You have a tough time with that, I know, but hey, that's your mind.


<yawn>



> Let's expand what you said, using actual meanings and definitions in place of the words used, to see if that is true: 
> *
> If no one has [the final number] in mind, [their guess at this final number, the average of what the other guesses might be] can't be [their] subjective opinion.*


No, you just lied about what I plainly wrote.  The actual number is not anyone's guess (except by coincidence, which we are ignoring).



> Completely absurd on its face, and falsified by just _one_ example.


Stupid lie refuted by your own example:



> Just one person playing the game decides to use the number 555,555, because 5 is her favorite number.  That alone causes her guess, and therefore THE ENTIRE RESULT to be _influenced by personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions.
> 
> _Contaminated. Forever subjective.


Nope.  There is no "contamination."  That is nothing but stupid garbage from you that ignores the definition of "subjective."



> You're trying to make people into random number generators, but they never are.


Stupid garbage unrelated to anything I wrote.



> *ALL guesses are subjective!* That these guesses may be factually and objectively recorded, and the "objective fact" that they were indeed made, does not imbue the guess itself with ANY OBJECTIVITY. *Ever*.


False dichotomy fallacy.  Again.



> You know what's funny about all of this?  Your little exercise is nothing new in science, and is well established.  Subjective Probability (averaging aggregate guesses being one example) is inherently subjective, because it is based on guesses!


It's not subjective, and has indeed been studied empirically.



> Objective Probability deals only with probability on basis of facts, experimentation, analysis, etc., that are not (by definition) influenced by personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions.


Garbage.



> You can ask a million people who is going to win the Superbowl twenty years from now, and their GUESSES can be FACTUALLY, OBJECTIVELY recorded.  That won't make their guesses objective -- not even when some of those guesses happen to coincide with what later becomes fact in twenty years.  Making the outcome self-fulfilling (the guesses are used to derive the actual "winning" number) won't make those guesses OR that number anything but _influenced by personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions._


Irrelevant.  The most likely winning guess is not subjective.  By definition.



> FYI - None of the above turing machine responses count for anything, Roy.


They simply identify the nature of your errors and lies for other readers.  I couldn't care less if you think they "count for anything."  I haven't the energy to try to educate someone who refuses to know all facts, and lies about what I have plainly written.  None of my responses are for you, and I do not care if you read them.



> You have to actually use words, and make coherent arguments. Until then, my actual arguments are the ONLY arguments that are standing.


I used actual words, and stated the relevant facts.  Your "arguments" are idiotic, fallacious, absurd and dishonest.



> *MAKING IT VERY EASY FOR YOU - A SIMPLE IDIOT-PROOF TEST*[/SIZE]


Nothing is idiot-proof, because idiots are so ingenious.  However, some things are certainly idiot proof:



> Take any recorded number that is in relation to anything at all, and ask the following question:  
> *Was the nominal value influenced in any way by personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions? 
> *
> If so, it's subjective. By definition.
> If not, it's objective. Again, by definition.
> 
> It really is that simple.


That is indeed a simple idiot proof.



> _The number itself_, on the other hand, which indeed does exist as a matter of indisputable fact, must undergo its own test. NOT to determine whether it is accurate, or objectively known or recorded - but to determine whether the value of the number itself was influenced in any way by personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions?  IF so, the number itself -- as a matter of fact -- is subjective in origin.


Silliness already refuted by the definition of "subjective" in YOUR OWN SOURCES.

----------


## enter`name`here

> Value is not objective.  Price is objective.  Value is not subjective.  Utility is subjective.  I have explained this multiple times.  You will now commit another false dichotomy fallacy.
> 
> If you want to know your plot's *indisputably* non-subjective MARKET value, hire a competent appraiser.  If your plot is very, very similar to the nearby ones that have recently sold for $50K, then he will find that its market value is close to $50K, not $100K.


1. If a thing doesn't not exist objectivly (independent of a persons perceptions) nor subjectivly (within a persons mind), in what sense does it exist at all?
2. indisputable is a strong word, espescially when talking about something that can vary by 5% in your own words.




> The standard error in real estate appraisals is less than 5%, so yours is on the high end; but the errors do tend to be proportionally bigger on lower-value properties.


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1824807

We find that, on average, appraisals are *more than 12%* above, or below, subsequent sales prices that take place two quarters following the appraisal

....

Finally, we find that this “appraisal error” is *largely systematic;* we can explain more than half of the variation in the signed percentage difference in sales price and appraised value. Hence, appraisal errors are *not due solely to property-specific heterogeneity.*

----------


## KingNothing

> In the case of the burritos, you still have to remove subjective "personal feelings or opinions" components for it to be objective (e.g., microwave spot-eating convenience, price per burrito discount for buying in bulk). Even so, if: 
> 
> You buy 2 burritos for $3, while 
> I buy 6 burritos for $3  (and we consider all other things equal)
> 
> Objectively, we can each cancel out the equal price paid, subtract two burritos from each side, and I will have 4 burritos to your zero.  Objectively it is more, but only because we are comparing like items.


But what if more is not better?  What if I opted to purchase less burritos because I could not store the additional burritos, believed I could not sell the additional burritos, and I also happened to believe that waste is anathema to Proper Living?  Is purchasing 6 burritos for the same price still objectively better?  Even if my marginal happiness is decreased by purchasing 6 burritos and wasting several of them?

Further, by purchasing from a more-expensive vendor, what impact does my decision have on the market?  Could it push potential consumers out by allowing prices to stay "artificially" high, and thereby result in some people going without a burrito?


......


Don't economics, philosophy, and logic rule?

----------


## brandon

This seems like a great thread and I'm upset I'm late to the party. I haven't read through the thread, but I'll add this very relevant opinion.  I agree completely and the subjective theory of value is what first led me to grasp free markets.




> *The Subjective Theory of Value* (Taken from Ron Paul's short book "Mises and AUstrian economics)
> The study of Austrian economics has helped me in many ways to
> understand what happens in our economy, and the excuses of the
> establishment economists as to why we’re not achieving the paradise
> that politicians promised if only their legislation were passed. It is
> time, of course, for them to do some serious explaining, since after 70
> years of intervention, conditions have gotten worse, and we face an
> international banking crisis unprecedented in all of history.
> Of all the important contributions of the Austrian School, the subjective
> ...

----------


## brandon

Okay I tried reading the thread and the way Roy L Responds is just insufferable and has killed all interest I had in this.  It would be great it he just politely argued his position in well organized paragraphs. But alas, his writing is indecipherably riddled with bold face, unneeded quotes and dozens of quotations. He seems to be seething with anger and contempt to anyone who dare disagree with him.

----------


## KingNothing

If "value" were not subjective, humanity could reach a point where a computer could determine the accurate "value" of all things at a particular moment in time and price them accordingly, thereby eliminating all negotiating and shady, underhanded dealing.

The amount of knowledge required for accurate price-setting is just one of the reasons a free market is preferable.  

The more important reason, in my subjective opinion, is that it allows people to set their own value for objects.  It allows individuals to determine how much of their time they are willing to trade for something else.  Just because enough individuals state that an object is worth $100 dollars, equal to an hour of my time, to keep the vendor's profits optimized does not mean that the object is worth that much, or that little, to me.  It also does not mean that a vendor would not be willing to sell the object to me at a different price.  They might wish to sell the object at a loss to build a good relationship with me.  They might realize they could sell the object at a higher rate because they know I prefer to deal with them, and that the value I place on the object and my relationship with them is higher than the market rate.

Market rates are just a mean value for a given moment and location.  They're the sum of subjective valuation at a precise place and time.

----------


## archangel689

LTV?

----------


## rpwi

> This seems like a great thread and I'm upset I'm late to the party. I haven't read through the thread, but I'll add this very relevant opinion.  I agree completely and the subjective theory of value is what first led me to grasp free markets.


STV is a great theory...that does a great service in understanding how things have and will be priced.  It is certainly much better than the LTV.  However...it has a fatal flaw in that it lacks precision...and it can not determine exact values.  Only bargaining power can.

The criticism on the Wikipedia page for this sums this up quite aptly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value




> Economist Paul Mattick argued that STV leads to circular reasoning. Prices are supposed to measure the "marginal utility" of the commodity. However, prices are required by the consumer in order to make the evaluations on how best to maximise their satisfaction. Hence subjective value "obviously rested on circular reasoning. Although it tried to explain prices, prices were necessary to explain marginal utility"


STV can obtain objective ranges of values in which subjective opinions hold each other in ratio and can still be very useful...but it has a deadspot where the equilibrium price should be.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> If "value" were not subjective, humanity could reach a point where a computer could determine the accurate "value" of all things at a particular moment in time and price them accordingly, thereby eliminating all negotiating and shady, underhanded dealing.
> 
> *The amount of knowledge required for accurate price-setting is just one of the reasons a free market is preferable. * 
> 
> The more important reason, in my subjective opinion, is that it allows people to set their own value for objects.  It allows individuals to determine how much of their time they are willing to trade for something else.  Just because enough individuals state that an object is worth $100 dollars, equal to an hour of my time, to keep the vendor's profits optimized does not mean that the object is worth that much, or that little, to me.  It also does not mean that a vendor would not be willing to sell the object to me at a different price.  They might wish to sell the object at a loss to build a good relationship with me.  They might realize they could sell the object at a higher rate because they know I prefer to deal with them, and that the value I place on the object and my relationship with them is higher than the market rate.
> 
> Market rates are just a mean value for a given moment and location.  They're the sum of subjective valuation at a precise place and time.


The amount of knowledge required for a truely free market to operate is also a major obstacle to the market becoming truely free. Producers and buyers must have 100% full and accurate information not just on what they are interested in but also on all possible alternatives to be able to make a free, correct, and informed choice.  The costs in both money and time to aquire all that information is prohibitive in most instances.  Add to that that people have an incentive to provide either incorrect or possibly misleading information to encourage a customer or seller in their direction and the quality of information which is available declines as well. 

If I want a box of cereal I am not going to check out all of the other boxes on the shelf looking at nutritional information and prices per ounce and then going to other stores in the area or even on the internet too to see if I am truely getting the best quality cereal at the best value for me. I am probably not going to be able to make a decision with all of that to consider so I look at what I alread have a preference for and decide if the prices at this store I am at now among my favorites is worth paying or if I should wait for a possible sale on it next week (assuming I have enough at home to last another week).

As for the topic- the value of everything is subjective.  Aluminum was once considered more valuable than gold. Today it is the other way around.  If you are in the middle of a desert, the value of a glass of water is priceless.  If you are in the middle of a lake and drowing, you would be happy to pay a huge price to have less water around you and be able to make it back to land. It is still just water but the value is significantly different in the two situations.

----------


## Roy L

> 1. If a thing doesn't not exist objectivly (independent of a persons perceptions) nor subjectivly (within a persons mind), in what sense does it exist at all?


Consider the probability that a given listed corporation will double its market capitalization in the next year.  That number exists, and we can estimate it, though it is not an objective fact, nor is it anyone's subjective opinion.  We just don't know what it is.



> 2. indisputable is a strong word, espescially when talking about something that can vary by 5% in your own words.


I used it correctly.



> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1824807
> 
> We find that, on average, appraisals are *more than 12%* above, or below, subsequent sales prices that take place two quarters following the appraisal


<sigh>  From the abstract of *YOUR OWN SOURCE*:

*"Even in a portfolio context, allowing for offsetting positive and negative differences, appraisals are off by an average of 4%  5 % of value,"*

And the study was for commercial real estate.  Residential properties are by far the majority, and residential prices are far more regular and predictable, as the rental income is much more reliable.



> Finally, we find that this appraisal error is *largely systematic;* we can explain more than half of the variation in the signed percentage difference in sales price and appraised value. Hence, appraisal errors are *not due solely to property-specific heterogeneity.*


Right.  They are also due to interference from systematically low tax assessments, etc.

----------


## Roy L

> I haven't read through the thread, but I'll add this very relevant opinion.  I agree completely and the subjective theory of value is what first led me to grasp free markets.
> ...
> "To understand how prices are determined, one must understand the subjective theory of value."


That's clearly false, as the subjective theory of value is false.

----------


## Zippyjuan

If the price of land is not subjective then a toxic waste dump of ten acres should have the same value as ten acres with a lake and trees and farms on it as should ten acres in Antartica.

----------


## Roy L

> Okay I tried reading the thread and the way Roy L Responds is just insufferable and has killed all interest I had in this.


You cannot bear to see your beliefs proved false.  Simple.



> It would be great it he just politely argued his position in well organized paragraphs. But alas, his writing is indecipherably riddled with bold face, unneeded quotes and dozens of quotations.


My writing is very clear and well organized, and line-by-line refutation makes the fallacies, absurdities and lies of the other side unambiguous.



> He seems to be seething with anger and contempt to anyone who dare disagree with him.


Because apparently the only way to disagree with me involves spewing relentlessly fallacious and dishonest absurdities and lies.  Not my fault, sorry.

----------


## Roy L

> If the price of land is not subjective then a toxic waste dump of ten acres should have the same value as ten acres with a lake and trees and farms on it as should ten acres in Antartica.


Good example of the fallacious, absurd and dishonest crap that seems always to be required any time anyone disagrees with me.

----------


## Roy L

> If "value" were not subjective, humanity could reach a point where a computer could determine the accurate "value" of all things at a particular moment in time and price them accordingly, thereby eliminating all negotiating and shady, underhanded dealing.


Can you prove that will always be impossible?



> The more important reason, in my subjective opinion, is that it allows people to set their own value for objects.  It allows individuals to determine how much of their time they are willing to trade for something else.


That is utility, not value.



> Just because enough individuals state that an object is worth $100 dollars, equal to an hour of my time, to keep the vendor's profits optimized does not mean that the object is worth that much, or that little, to me.


Value *doesn't mean* it is worth that much to *you*.



> It also does not mean that a vendor would not be willing to sell the object to me at a different price.  They might wish to sell the object at a loss to build a good relationship with me.  They might realize they could sell the object at a higher rate because they know I prefer to deal with them, and that the value I place on the object and my relationship with them is higher than the market rate.


More irrelevancy.  Value is what an item CAN BE EXPECTED to trade for.



> Market rates are just a mean value for a given moment and location.  They're the sum of subjective valuation at a precise place and time.


Anti-economic gibberish.

----------


## Roy L

> As for the topic- the value of everything is subjective.


No, because that is not what "value" in the economic sense means.  It is UTILITY that is subjective, not value.  This is well known.



> Aluminum was once considered more valuable than gold.


And it was.



> Today it is the other way around.  If you are in the middle of a desert, the value of a glass of water is priceless.  If you are in the middle of a lake and drowing, you would be happy to pay a huge price to have less water around you and be able to make it back to land. It is still just water but the value is significantly different in the two situations.


Same conflation of value with utility.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Value doesn't mean it is worth that much to you.


Exactly. Value is what one person is willing to sell it for combined with what somebody else is willing to pay for it- they agree that the price is fair and they conduct the transaction.  That value will change from time to time and from person to person which proves that the value is indeed subjective.  If value is not subjective then it should stay fixed. 


As for a definition- to be sure we are talking about the same thing:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/value.html



> *Definitions (4)*
> 
> 1. Accounting: The monetaryworth of an asset, business entity, good sold, service rendered, or liability or obligation acquired.
> 
> 2. *Economics: The worth of all the benefits and rights arising from ownership. Two types of economic value are (1) the utility of a good or service, and (2) power of a good or service to command other goods, services, or money, in voluntary exchange.*
> 
> 3. Marketing: The extent to which a good or service is perceived by its customer to meet his or her needs or wants, measured by customer'swillingness to pay for it. It commonly depends more on the customer's perception of the worth of the product than on its intrinsic value.
> 
> 4. Mathematics: A magnitude or quantity represented by numbers.
> ...

----------


## Roy L

> Exactly. Value is what one person is willing to sell it for combined with what somebody else is willing to pay for it- they agree that the price is fair and they conduct the transaction.


No, that *isn't* what value is, unless they happen to be the two people at the margin.



> That value will change from time to time and from person to person which proves that the value is indeed subjective.  If value is not subjective then it should stay fixed.


Garbage with no basis in fact, logic, semantics or economics.



> As for a definition- to be sure we are talking about the same thing:
> ...
> 2. Economics: The worth of all the benefits and rights arising from ownership. Two types of economic value are (1) the utility of a good or service, and (2) power of a good or service to command other goods, services, or money, in voluntary exchange.
> 
> http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/value.html


Right.  Note that the first sense is more commonly called UTILITY, because calling it "value" is old-fashioned (it's the same as Smith's "value in use"), while the second is what is now meant by "value" in economics: the amount of money (or goods or services equivalent to money) an item can be expected to exchange for in the market.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> the second is what is now meant by "value" in economics: *the amount of money (or goods or services equivalent to money) an item can be expected to exchange for in the market.*


Which is exactly what I was talking about. Read the first thing you copied into your post. 



> Originally Posted by Zippyjuan
> 
> Exactly. Value is *what one person is willing to sell it for combined with what somebody else is willing to pay for it*- they agree that the price is fair and they conduct the transaction.






> No, that *isn't* what value is,


First you said that was not value then you agreed that it was indeed the definition.

----------


## Roy L

> Which is exactly what I was talking about.


Then why did you say something quite different from that?



> Read the first thing you copied into your post.


I have.  Time for you to read it, and this time try to understand it.



> First you said that was not value then you agreed that it was indeed value.


<sigh>  Garbage.  Try reading what I wrote.  What is now called "utility" was formerly known as "value in use," and is indeed subjective.  BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT "VALUE" NOW MEANS IN ECONOMICS.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Then why did you say something quite different from that?


I didn't.  You tried to claim I did. 



> Time for you to read it, and this time try to understand it.


I wrote it so I know what was said. But thanks for the suggestion. 

But this is side chatter. Perhaps to help illustrate your position and aid us in understanding it you can provide us with examples of values which are not subjective.

----------


## Roy L

> I didn't.  You tried to claim I did.


You did.



> I wrote it so I know what was said. But thanks for the suggestion.


I guess you just didn't understand what you were writing.  It's not that uncommon among the terminally confused.



> Perhaps to help illustrate your position you can provide us with examples of values which are not subjective.


The amount that anything can be expected to trade for in the market is not subjective, because it requires the differing opinions of all the buyers and sellers near the margin to determine that amount.  It's not any one individual's opinion, and is therefore not subjective by definition.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> It's not that uncommon among the terminally confused.


I hope you will be able to recover from that- but if it is terminal I guess you will probably always have it. Sorry to hear.




> The amount that anything can be expected to trade for in the market is not subjective, because it requires the differing opinions of all the buyers and sellers near the margin to determine that amount. It's not any one individual's opinion, and is therefore not subjective by definition.


Actually, by definition, it is. A market is the sum of all individual actors who participate in it so the individual DOES count. 

Let me try to help you on this issue then.  Here is another definition. Subjective Theory of Value from the Investopedia:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/...#axzz1uV03RddY



> Investopedia explains 'Subjective Theory Of Value'
>  For example, let's say you have one wool coat and the weather is extremely cold outside, you will want that coat to wear and keep you from freezing. In a case like this, the wool coat might be worth more to you than a diamond necklace. If on the other hand, the temperature is warm, you will not want to use the coat, so your desire for - and amount you value - the coat wanes. In effect, the value of the coat is based on your desire and need for it, thus it is the value you placed on it - not any inherent value of the coat. 
> 
> Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/...#ixzz1uV0Ok2X4


Another from the same link:



> Definition of 'Subjective Theory Of Value'
>  The idea that an object's value is not inherent, and is instead worth more to different people based on how much they desire or need the object. The Subjective Theory of Value places value on how scarce and useful an item is rather than basing the value of the object on how many resources and man hours went into creating it.
> 
> This theory was developed in the late 19th century by economists and thinkers of the time, including Carl Menger and Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk
> 
> Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/...#ixzz1uV0YhiP9


Are you able to find any examples of inherent value items or products yet? Thanks again for looking.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> STV is a great theory...that does a great service in understanding how things have and will be priced.  It is certainly much better than the LTV.  However...it has a fatal flaw in that it lacks precision...and it can not determine exact values.  Only bargaining power can.


That fatal flaw exists in all theories. It's just masked in others by simply redefining "exact values". 

STV honestly acknowledges the complexity of subjective individual valuation up front, and while acknowledging the individual forces (not individual people - individual people in control of quantities of individual resources) that are the ultimate determiners of that _very transient phenomenon_ called value.  It then reveals (proves) that scientifically meaningful precision is far more difficult to obtain when meaningful assumptions are applied. 

There is an irony I see in the debates over subjective vs. objective theories of value, because those who argue that value is objective can only do so by first applying a subjective definition that is based on an opinion (e.g., *average=objective*). Thus the very precision claimed by other theories of value were derived by the opinions and/or governing  assumptions imposed at some point along the way by (or onto) the modeler, analyst or appraiser!  

Value under all other theories of value are not universal, and are anything but simple. STV views everything from the individual outward, while OTV attempts to drill from the aggregate down (toward but never arriving at) the individual.  The complexity that is fundamentally rooted in individuals but disregarded by OTV is revealed anyway in the complexity of their models.  These models must drill "toward" the individual forces they won't examine except in aggregate blobs, as they must still narrow space and time components (_which_ market, _which_ region, and _which_ time period is established as a reference).  




> STV can obtain objective ranges of values in which subjective opinions hold each other in ratio and can still be very useful...but it has a deadspot where the equilibrium price should be.


That's a very good way of putting it, I think.  

Those who argue, as I do, that all value is inherently subjective _at all scales_ are simply observing complex "irrational" human behavior, and quantifying it accordingly while staying within their acknowledged limitations.   That "deadspot" you mentioned is arguably the part that no theory can predict or account for with absolute precision.  STV is just more honest about it. Noise is noise. Deadspots are deadspots. Don't ignore, disregard or weight it. *Count it.* 

I see the appeal that "Objective Theory of Value" has for many who argue  for it.  After all, the more they can convince themselves that they can objectively determine value  without any specific ties to individual subjective inputs, the more individual  personal feelings, preferences, tastes and opinions can be disregarded  altogether. 

The "precision" sought and touted is ultimately a question of AVERAGES, which can have "exact value" which can be objectively observed and recorded, but are defined _a priori_  as being equivalent to "objective value", which average can then be applied to everyone as a  baseline reference. But this requires that we first swallow the premise that *average=objective*.

Those who argue that value can be strictly objective want a greater  element of predictability and accuracy, but can obtain this only at the  expense of objectivity.  They can only do this using theoretical  definitions, rules and formulae in which *value is constrained in some way to  mass appeal*:  "What DID most people recently do?" (in the case of price)  versus "What WOULD most people do" in the case of value. 

 But even  that's too simplistic, even for them.  To get any meaningful information  or precision for a specific market this must further be qualified and narrowed, especially in terms of space and time.  _What would most people do in  THIS particular market in THIS particular region over THIS time period?_  The ultimate narrowing, of course, always comes down to a  paired force - *the atom of the market* at the quantum level - a single irrational buyer force  paired with a single irrational seller force -- and just like in physics,  EVERYTHING "Newtonian/Keynesian" breaks down at the quantum level, in what appears to be anarchy, with many different rules and exceptions to rule that have to identified and understood before they can be applied. 

Those who presuppose that value can be objective view exceptions as rogue anomalies, which are averaged out, substituted, weighted up or down, or disregarded altogether.  Likewise with anything seen as too erratic or volatile. Likewise with unique goods that are not truly fungible.  In other words, the very things that make for true precision on a granular level are manipulated in preference to AVERAGE PRECISION. In that way we can get what looks like "precision", but it's a precision that is imposed by artificial constraints, and therefore subjective, as they are influenced by opinion, however "expert", and their assumptions.  

That can be a means for _control_, as they can now say, in effect, "Individuals don't determine value. Only "the market" does (whatever that means, and however that is defined, and by whomever defines it).  Anything that deviates can then be disregarded. Tyranny of the defining oligarchy under color of the [average of the] majority.  There is an universe of difference between someone who simply and  objectively observes and crunches numbers and _someone who subjectively determines  what those crunched numbers must mean_. That difference is where political obfuscation and circular logic occurs, even in economics as the Observer of Average Values may remain truly objective, insulated from the _wholly subjective_ Determiner of Value based on a preferred definition with decidedly normative underpinnings. 

Wonderful for anyone who craves supply-side control, because subjective valuation is no longer a factor that even needs to be considered.

----------


## Roy L

> Actually, by definition, it is.


Actually, I already proved that by definition, it isn't.



> A market is the sum of all individual actors who participate in it so the individual DOES count.


So what?  The individual also counts in a running race.  That doesn't mean his time is subjective.  Duh.  You are just spewing stupid, irrational, dishonest garbage.



> Let me try to help you on this issue then.


Let me tear you another @$$hole:



> Here is another definition. Subjective Theory of Value from the Investopedia:
> http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/...#axzz1uV03RddY
> 
> Another from the same link:


<sigh>  They are clearly talking about *utility*, not *value* in the economic sense.  Utility is not value.  Value is not utility.

How many times do I have to explain that to you?



> Are you able to find any examples of inherent value items or products yet?


<yawn>  Don't lie about what I have plainly written.  It's stupid and dishonest.  I have given you examples of value that is *not subjective*.  I have stated many times that there is no such thing as _inherent_ value, because value is a relationship between the item and the market (which also proves it is not subjective), not something inherent in the item.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Well, thanks for trying anyways. Maybe it is that terminal condition you said you had.  I'll quit bothering you on this issue.

----------


## Roy L

> There is an irony I see in the debates over subjective vs. objective theories of value,


Same old false dichotomy fallacy.



> because those who argue that value is objective


Who has argued that?  Are you lying (_again_) that I have?



> I see the appeal that "Objective Theory of Value" has for many who argue  for it.


Like who?  Quote those arguments.

Thought not.



> After all, the more they can convince themselves that they can objectively determine value  without any specific ties to individual subjective inputs, the more individual  personal feelings, preferences, tastes and opinions can be disregarded  altogether.


Stupid, dishonest garbage.



> Those who argue that value can be strictly objective


Who?  Quote them.

Thought not.



> Those who presuppose that value can be objective


Who are they?  What arguments have they offered?  Quote them.

Thought not.

----------


## Roy L

> Well, thanks for trying anyways.


Thanks for proving what a waste of time you are.



> Maybe it is that terminal condition you said you had.  I'll quit bothering you on this issue.


Cowardly, dishonest, and despicable.  What a surprise.

----------


## enter`name`here

> Consider the probability that a given listed corporation will double its market capitalization in the next year.  That number exists, and we can estimate it, though it is not an objective fact, nor is it anyone's subjective opinion.  We just don't know what it is.


The number exists? how? where? an estimation is just that, an estimation, and it can differ from person to person.




> I used it correctly.


Indisputable Adjective:Not disputable; unable to be challenged or denied. I'd say that it is quite possible to challenge an appraisal, when such appraisals has been statistically shown to be off by 12% on average.




> <sigh>  From the abstract of *YOUR OWN SOURCE*:
> 
> *"Even in a portfolio context, allowing for offsetting positive and negative differences, appraisals are off by an average of 4% – 5 % of value,"*


That sentence is talking about the value of a portfolio of properties. The key part of that sentence is "_offsetting positive and negative differences_". This means that if one appraisal *under*estimated the value by 16% and another *over*estimated by 8% then yes the appraised value of the portfolio is only off by 4%, *yet on average each individual appraisal is still off by 12%*.




> And the study was for commercial real estate.  Residential properties are by far the majority, and residential prices are far more regular and predictable, as the rental income is much more reliable.


Care to cite a study?

----------


## Roy L

> The number exists? how? where?


In the relation between every fact about the company and the market for its shares.



> an estimation is just that, an estimation, and it can differ from person to person.


An estimation is different from the number being estimated.  Recall the midway number-guessing game.  



> Indisputable Adjective:Not disputable; unable to be challenged or denied. I'd say that it is quite possible to challenge an appraisal, when such appraisals has been statistically shown to be off by 12% on average.


Of course, that would be relevant if I had said appraisals were indisputable.  But as you know, I didn't.  I said economic VALUE was indisputably not subjective.



> Care to cite a study?


"In the case of residential appraisals, Dotzour (1988a,b) compares appraisals and purchase prices for more than 500 residential properties acquired by corporate relocation companies as part of corporate employee relocations.6 Dotzour (1988a) shows that the mean absolute difference between appraised value and purchase price is* 2.77% for the subsample in which appraisals were performed by professionally designated appraisers*, and 5.13% for the subsample in which appraisals were performed by nondesignated appraisers.7"

aux.zicklin.baruch.cuny.edu/jrer/papers/pdf/past/.../v17p033.pdf

So did the Cannon and Cole study you cited use all certified professional appraisals?  Or was it largely @$$-pulled "appraisals" by real estate salesmen, vendors, etc.?

Here's more:

"Diaz presented data from which Graff and Young computed sample standard deviation statistics of *2.67%* for one fifteen-sample subset and *2.61%* for the other fifteen-sample subset."

homepage.mac.com/mikero1/MSY/articlesPDF/ApprErr2.pdf

----------


## Steven Douglas

> An estimation is different from the number being estimated.  Recall the midway number-guessing game.


So many opinions to torture into facts, so little time.  You didn't get away with it, Roy.  Your midway number-guessing game requires subjective inputs. Not knowing the final number does not make the input objective.  There is no such thing as an objective guess. Guesses are, at all times, SUBJECTIVE, regardless how ill-informed.  NOTHING can make it otherwise.  

The final number - the average of a given number of subjective guesses (mean? median? mode? Who decides and why?) is entirely subjective by definition, given that _each and every input_ was influenced by personal feeling or opinion (when really all it takes is one).  Thus, the entire final number is influenced by myriad personal feelings and opinions, and therefore subjective by definition. That would be true even if each participant was asked to pick only a random number between 1 and 1,000,000 - which they are not.  They are actually trying to guess at what other people are guessing on average. In other words, AN OPINION, regardless how ill-informed, is *required*. 

You want the resulting number to be considered objective, given that the number exists (the guessing event-transactions occurred and were averaged) and can be factually and objectively calculated and recorded.  But that particular objectivity will NEVER translate to objectivity of the meaning behind the resulting number (what that number actually represents), which can NEVER be considered objective. 

Context vs. Content, Roy.  Back to "_n_ percent of posters called Roy a crackpot." -- this can be an objective fact which can be accurately and objectively counted, averaged and recorded. Does this "objective fact" of the resulting number mean that Roy is indeed _n_% a crackpot? And that was then, this is now. Does that number apply to the present or future, or only the past? How long does this collectivized opinion-cum-fact hold up? What if, right after the test, half the people changed their opinions (i.e., they read one of your posts). And what if we have a million people judging, will that make it more "objective"? Will that give us a more precise answer in regard to the level of your crack-pottery?  What if we have a million people guessing, but only from people who don't know anything about you in advance, will that help?  

Subjective + Subjective + Subjective + Subjective + Subjective / 5 = *Subjective [Mean] Average*

That is an Objective Calculation and Recording --- of a Subjectively Determined Number (the sum of the subjective inputs divided by the number of those inputs).  The number itself is still subjective in meaning or representation, regardless how factually or objectively it was calculated or recorded.

Objectivity is not a democratic exercise, Roy. Collectivizing and averaging subjective inputs does not make the final result more objective.  Objectivity can't  be "voted" into existence. 




> Of course, that would be relevant if I had said appraisals were indisputable.  But as you know, I didn't.  I said economic VALUE was indisputably not subjective.


This is another slippery semantics game you won't get away with, Roy. 

Now we're back to the real world version of your midway number-guessing game, and the myriad subjective inputs that can provide us an objectively recorded number which is subjectively determined and entirely subjective in meaning.  And only if we are talking about market price and not economic value (however economic value is defined).  

This is also where you seek to conflate market price and market value, and the known recent past with the unknown future, based on your airtight purists definition of price -- meaning market price only -- _most recent historical_; those prices actually paid for given quantities in real transactions. Those are the ones you want linked by implication to your goosey-loose definition of "economic value", which you did not define. Economic value for anything not yet exchanged, and regardless of your definition, is ANYTHING but objective, given that the very definition of "economic value" depends on the market, and has both space and time components that must be subjectively determined before they can even be considered. And this is before we account for the fact that it's based on values that are equally subjective in meaning (past prices paid) regardless how factually stated or objectively calculated or recorded. 

To prove this, what, precisely, is your definition of "economic VALUE"?  And don't point somewhere else, or claim that you've already stated, argued or proved anything at all.  DEFINE IT. Provide us a concise, explanatory definition of "economic VALUE", which you claim is not subjective, _in your post_.

----------


## Aurave

It doesn't seem like RoyL has justified anything in his responses. I was hoping for something a little more intelligent but all I see at best is a perfidious game of semantics. It would help if you didn't take the literal definition of subjective and then insist dogmatically that it means objective. I'm sure there's an argument to be made somewhere out there for objective value in the realm of economics but this isn't even close...you might want to read up on Karl Marx and Ayn Rand a bit more and come back with an argument that at least makes sense.

----------


## Noble Savage

seems like a lot of time wasted on words to me

----------


## Roy L

> It doesn't seem like RoyL has justified anything in his responses.


You are lying.



> I was hoping for something a little more intelligent but all I see at best is a perfidious game of semantics.


The issue is PRECISELY one of semantics.  I suggest you look up the word.



> It would help if you didn't take the literal definition of subjective and then insist dogmatically that it means objective.


I have done no such thing, stop lying.



> I'm sure there's an argument to be made somewhere out there for objective value in the realm of economics but this isn't even close


<sigh>  For the hundredth time, it is PRICE that is objective, NOT VALUE.



> ...you might want to read up on Karl Marx and Ayn Rand a bit more and come back with an argument that at least makes sense.


I had read most of Rand's oeuvre more than 30 years ago, junior, which was probably long before you were born, and at university I did my time with Marx, too.  I would suggest that your acquaintance with both of them is cursory at best (don't bother reading any more of Marx, if you have read any at all: it doesn't get better).

----------


## Roy L

> So many opinions to torture into facts, so little time.


As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"



> You didn't get away with it, Roy.


I didn't *try* to get away with anything, StEvil, so stop your stupid, evil lying.  I have been as clear as I can.



> Your midway number-guessing game requires subjective inputs. Not knowing the final number does not make the input objective.  There is no such thing as an objective guess. Guesses are, at all times, SUBJECTIVE, regardless how ill-informed.  NOTHING can make it otherwise.


The guesses are indeed the subjective opinions of the individual players.  The winning number is not, and neither is the most likely winning number before the game starts.



> The final number - the average of a given number of subjective guesses (mean? median? mode? Who decides and why?)


You could play the game using either the median or the mean.  The mode is an entirely different game, as you are then trying to guess the most common guess, not the average guess.



> is entirely subjective by definition, given that _each and every input_ was influenced by personal feeling or opinion (when really all it takes is one).


Again, that is a stupid lie directly contradicted by the definition of "subjective," which I quoted for you from YOUR OWN SOURCES.  I have already proved that you are telling stupid lies, StEvil: a runner's time is also influenced by personal feelings.  But it is an objective fact, nothing subjective about it.  You stand refuted.  So from now on, whenever you claim that being influenced by feelings or opinions makes a datum subjective, you will simply be lying.  You will just be telling a stupid, stupid lie.  There is no way to rationalize evil but by telling stupid lies.  I don't know any clearer way to explain that to you.



> Thus, the entire final number is influenced by myriad personal feelings and opinions, and therefore subjective by definition.


You just told another stupid lie, StEvil (actually it was the same one).



> That would be true even if each participant was asked to pick only a random number between 1 and 1,000,000 - which they are not.  They are actually trying to guess at what other people are guessing on average. In other words, AN OPINION, regardless how ill-informed, is *required*.


And as soon as it is more than one person's opinion, it is by definition not subjective.



> You want the resulting number to be considered objective, given that the number exists (the guessing event-transactions occurred and were averaged) and can be factually and objectively calculated and recorded.  But that particular objectivity will NEVER translate to objectivity of the meaning behind the resulting number (what that number actually represents), which can NEVER be considered objective.


That is gibberish designed only to remove your brain, dice it, saute it with onions and a little black pepper, and put it back in your skull ready for use.



> And what if we have a million people judging, will that make it more "objective"?


More than one, and it is by definition not subjective.



> Subjective + Subjective + Subjective + Subjective + Subjective / 5 = *Subjective [Mean] Average*


LOL!  No, StEvil.  Subjective + Subjective --> Not Subjective.



> That is an Objective Calculation and Recording --- of a Subjectively Determined Number (the sum of the subjective inputs divided by the number of those inputs).  The number itself is still subjective in meaning or representation, regardless how factually or objectively it was calculated or recorded.


Already refuted.



> Objectivity is not a democratic exercise, Roy. Collectivizing and averaging subjective inputs does not make the final result more objective.  Objectivity can't  be "voted" into existence.


But SUBjectivity CAN be and IS voted OUT of existence any time more than one person votes.



> This is another slippery semantics game you won't get away with, Roy.


It is indeed semantics, but a game would require more than one person who knows some semantics.  You don't know any.



> Now we're back to the real world version of your midway number-guessing game, and the myriad subjective inputs that can provide us an objectively recorded number which is subjectively determined and entirely subjective in meaning.  And only if we are talking about market price and not economic value (however economic value is defined).


I have told you repeatedly how it is defined: economic value is what an item can be expected to trade for in the market.  You just refuse to talk about it.



> This is also where you seek to conflate market price and market value,


I have repeatedly and very clearly distinguished between them, you are just lying again.



> and the known recent past with the unknown future, based on your airtight purists definition of price -- meaning market price only --


Price is transaction amount, whether arrived at in the market or not.



> _most recent historical_; those prices actually paid for given quantities in real transactions. Those are the ones you want linked by implication to your goosey-loose definition of "economic value", which you did not define.


Stop lying; it is not "loosey-goosey"; I have defined it repeatedly and you know it; so _stop lying._

Given the definition of value, market price is OBVIOUSLY linked to it by definition, not implication.



> Economic value for anything not yet exchanged, and regardless of your definition, is ANYTHING but objective, given that the very definition of "economic value" depends on the market, and has both space and time components that must be subjectively determined before they can even be considered.


I have stated repeatedly that value is not objective, stop lying.  Your, "space and time components that must be subjectively determined before they can even be considered" is just gibberish.



> And this is before we account for the fact that it's based on values that are equally subjective in meaning (past prices paid) regardless how factually stated or objectively calculated or recorded.


More gibberish.



> To prove this, what, precisely, is your definition of "economic VALUE"?


I have stated it repeatedly, and you know it.



> And don't point somewhere else, or claim that you've already stated, argued or proved anything at all.  DEFINE IT. Provide us a concise, explanatory definition of "economic VALUE", which you claim is not subjective, _in your post_.


<sigh>  For the hundredth time, economic value is the amount an item can be expected to trade for in the market.  It is what every honest person means by "value" in an economic context.  It is what another poster meant when he talked about a tractor being "worth $100K."  You know this.  You just have to refuse to know it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I didn't *try* to get away with anything, StEvil, so stop your stupid, evil lying.


You just don't learn, do you? 




> The guesses are indeed the subjective opinions of the individual players.  The winning number is not, and neither is the most likely winning number before the game starts.
> 
> Again, that is a stupid lie directly contradicted by the definition of "subjective," which I quoted for you from YOUR OWN SOURCES.  I have already proved that you are telling stupid lies, StEvil: a runner's time is also influenced by personal feelings.  But it is an objective fact, nothing subjective about it.


I notice you have not bothered even once to quote the definitions of subjective and objective in your arguments (even though I do it repeatedly, with full explanations). Why is that, Roy?

How, EXACTLY, was my argument "directly contradicted by the definition of subjective"?  Don't just say "telling stupid lies". Quote the actual definition and use reason, logic and common sense to actually argue your point. 




> So from now on, whenever you claim that being influenced by feelings or opinions makes a datum subjective, you will simply be lying.


Either that or I will be in absolute alignment (as I always have been) with the very definition of subjective. Datum that is *influenced by personal feelings or opinions* is, by definition, subjective.  Likewise with data (plural), regardless how combined, when they are *influenced by personal feelings or opinions* (see how I keep throwing in the actual definition of subjective as part of the argument?).




> And as soon as it is more than one person's opinion, it is by definition not subjective.


*Datum 1:* Sauerkraut tastes delicious. (1 vote for)
*Datum 2:* Sauerkraut tastes terrible. (1 vote against)

*FACTUAL DATA:* (indisputable facts of objective reality from more than one subjective input)
50% of those tested thought sauerkraut tasted delicious. 
50% of those tested thought sauerkraut tasted terrible. 

The data OBJECTIVELY reveal a FACT (an average), about _nonetheless subjective_ opinions about sauerkraut.  And only for those people tested, and only for that time. 

All subjectivity originates from individuals, but there is absolutely nothing in the definition of subjective or objective that makes any reference to a plurality of opinions, or how one person's subjective opinion could be made objective by combining it in any way with another subjective opinion. Source?  Actual words, please. Argue your point. The fact that those opinions have been advanced exists, and they might be objectively recorded, or even averaged, but they are not objective in themselves, because they are -- jointly and severally -- influenced by personal feelings or opinions, which makes them forever subjective.




> More than one, and it is by definition not subjective.


See above. See Roy, the way it works is, you make your assertion, then provide the definition you're referring to, then argue exactly why your assertion fits with that definition, as well as why mine do not.  The definitions of subjective and objective make no reference to "more than one" (especially not "more than one subjective opinion").  AKA - you're making crap up.  




> LOL!  No, StEvil.  Subjective + Subjective --> Not Subjective.


You have absolutely no concept of what subjective means, Roy.  Two subjectives do not make one objective.  Never did, never will.  

My neighbor is of the opinion that Picasso's art is overrated.
My other neighbor is of that exact same opinion. 

Two subjective opinions. Have they stated anything about the value of Picasso's work? Yes. Absolutely. For them personally. As a matter of objective fact, each have stated an opinion, and both have stated an opinion about the same thing.  But those two subjective opinions do not become objective simply because two idiots voted on the matter.  And even if we gather opinions from all across the globe, each and every opinion, individually and collectively, will be just as subjective as any one all by its lonesome. 




> But SUBjectivity CAN be and IS voted OUT of existence any time more than one person votes.


Again, this only proves in the absolute that you do not comprehend the definition of subjective, and don't even know what it means.  You really are just making stuff up, because what you just wrote isn't contained in the definition of subjective OR objective. Subjective only means _influenced by personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions_. Two or more personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions combined cannot create something that is suddenly and magically free of personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions. 




> I have told you repeatedly how it is defined: economic value is what an item can be expected to trade for in the market. You just refuse to talk about it.


I would love it if we could actually talk about it. Which market? For what goods or services and where? Expected by whom, and how is that expectation derived?  Economic value cannot be derived without answers to those questions, which you consistently refuse to talk about.




> Price is transaction amount, whether arrived at in the market or not.


Self-refuting gibberish (and note how I don't just state this as a dismissive assertion and move on as if I made a point, but actually follow it up with an argument). How does one obtain a "transaction amount"  -- that is not arrived at in the market -- without a transaction?




> Stop lying


Stop saying "Stop lying", Roy.  It's rude, arrogant and presumptuous.  People have honest disagreements all the time and may well be disagreeing honestly, and communicating that disagreement in earnest.  You are neither omniscient nor are you the lone arbiter of truth.  Not agreeing with Roy L. is not tantamount to a "refusal to know facts", nor is it necessarily "lying".  So get over yourself and snap out of it. 




> Given the definition of value, market price is OBVIOUSLY linked to it by definition, not implication.


Linked to, not equal to, not conflated with. Huge difference. 




> I have stated repeatedly that value is not objective, stop lying.  Your, "space and time components that must be subjectively determined before they can even be considered" is just gibberish.


It's not gibberish. Every mainstream definition of market value has some time element to it (the price a given thing is expected to sell for within a given period of time - often referred to as a "reasonable" period of time). That's pretty basic to economic value Roy, and varies with several factors, one being the types of good in question.  Real estate may have a time element of 30-60-90 days, while perishable goods may be considerably shorter, given their shelf life.  Market value also depends on the spatial region - which is why perishable produce in Manhatten will be naturally expected to have a different market value than the same produce that is grown and sold in the farming region that produced it.   Again, not gibberish - all pretty much Econ 101.

----------


## Roy L

> You just don't learn, do you?


LOL!  You are the one who refuses to know facts even when they are fired into your brain multiple times at high velocity.



> I notice you have not bothered even once to quote the definitions of subjective and objective in your arguments (even though I do it repeatedly, with full explanations).


I notice you are lying again.  I quoted _multiple independent definitions of subjective from YOUR OWN SOURCES_ in post #5 of this thread, and you know it.

The "definition" of subjective that you repeatedly quote is ridiculous garbage, as it implies that as price is also influenced by feelings or opinion, it is *also* subjective.  But if that is the case, then your objection that value is subjective loses all force and becomes self-contradictory, because price is indisputably an objective fact, as you yourself have already stipulated.



> Why is that, Roy?


Because you are grotesquely dishonest and have no facts or logic to offer?



> How, EXACTLY, was my argument "directly contradicted by the definition of subjective"?  Don't just say "telling stupid lies". Quote the actual definition and use reason, logic and common sense to actually argue your point.


I have already refuted and demolished you in post #5 of this thread StEvil.  Once again, the definitions are from YOUR OWN SOURCES:



> sub·jec·tive (sb-jktv)
> adj. 1. a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
> b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
> 2. Moodily introspective.
> 3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
> 4. Psychology Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
> 
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subjective
> 
> ...





> Either that or I will be in absolute alignment (as I always have been) with the very definition of subjective.


YOU HAVE QUOTED _ONE_ *FALSE* DEFINITION.



> Datum that is *influenced by personal feelings or opinions* is, by definition, subjective.


No, that is only your stupid, false, dishonest and self-contradictory definition, as already proved.



> Likewise with data (plural), regardless how combined, when they are *influenced by personal feelings or opinions* (see how I keep throwing in the actual definition of subjective as part of the argument?).


That is *not* "the actual" definition of subjective.  It is a *false* definition that broadens the concept far beyond what any competent English speaker would apply the word to. 



> All subjectivity originates from individuals, but there is absolutely nothing in the definition of subjective or objective that makes any reference to a plurality of opinions, or how one person's subjective opinion could be made objective by combining it in any way with another subjective opinion. Source?  Actual words, please.


See above.  I have refuted and demolished you, and proved you objectively wrong over and over again.  This procedure unfortunately never has any effect on your beliefs.



> The fact that those opinions have been advanced exists, and they might be objectively recorded, or even averaged, but they are not objective in themselves, because they are -- jointly and severally -- influenced by personal feelings or opinions, which makes them forever subjective.


Each individual opinion is subjective, but once more than one opinion is utilized, the result is not subjective by (the actual) definition.



> See above.


I have seen above, and it is nothing but MORE STUPID GARBAGE FROM YOU.



> See Roy, the way it works is, you make your assertion, then provide the definition you're referring to, then argue exactly why your assertion fits with that definition, as well as why mine do not.


Already done, multiple times.



> The definitions of subjective and objective make no reference to "more than one" (especially not "more than one subjective opinion").  AKA - you're making crap up.


You are just baldly lying, as usual.  See YOUR OWN SOURCES:

adj. 1. a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
b. *Particular to a given person*; personal: subjective experience.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
4. Psychology Existing only within the experiencer's mind.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subjective

sub·jec·tive [suhb-jek-tiv]
adjective
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.




> You have absolutely no concept of what subjective means, Roy.


No, YOU have absolutely no concept of what subjective means.  You quote a single false definition, and constantly make absurd claims based on it.



> Two subjectives do not make one objective.  Never did, never will.


But when they are combined, they ALWAYS make one NON-subjective.  Always did, always will.



> My neighbor is of the opinion that Picasso's art is overrated.
> My other neighbor is of that exact same opinion. 
> 
> Two subjective opinions. Have they stated anything about the value of Picasso's work? Yes. Absolutely. For them personally.


Equivocation fallacy.  That is not the relevant sense of the word, "value," and you know it.



> As a matter of objective fact, each have stated an opinion, and both have stated an opinion about the same thing.  But those two subjective opinions do not become objective simply because two idiots voted on the matter.  And even if we gather opinions from all across the globe, each and every opinion, individually and collectively, will be just as subjective as any one all by its lonesome.


But as soon as you say, "Those two agree Picasso is over-rated," you are saying something that is NOT SUBJECTIVE.



> Again, this only proves in the absolute that you do not comprehend the definition of subjective, and don't even know what it means.


No, YOU do not know what it means, as already proved.  If your definition were accurate, then price would also be subjective, and you have ALREADY AGREED that it is objective.  That is a bald self-contradiction.



> You really are just making stuff up, because what you just wrote isn't contained in the definition of subjective OR objective.


Yes, it is.  See above.  The definitions I have cited are logically consistent and defensible.  The one you cite is not, as PROVED above.



> Subjective only means _influenced by personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions_.


Already disproved multiple times.



> Two or more personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions combined cannot create something that is suddenly and magically free of personal feelings, tastes, preferences or opinions.


But it does create something that is no longer subjective, as proved above.



> I would love it if we could actually talk about it.


You are lying, StEvil, and you will now prove that for me by concocting some idiotic excuse *not* to talk about it:



> Which market?


The one in which the item in question could trade.



> For what goods or services and where?


Those whose value is of interest, wherever they are most likely to trade.



> Expected by whom, and how is that expectation derived?


Those who are interested enough in the value of the item in question to have some knowledge of the market for it, who derive it from their knowledge of how that and similar items have traded in the past.



> Economic value cannot be derived without answers to those questions, which you consistently refuse to talk about.


You are lying.  As usual.



> Self-refuting gibberish


Stupid lie. 


> (and note how I don't just state this as a dismissive assertion and move on as if I made a point, but actually follow it up with an argument).


I note that you do no such thing, and just make some stupid $#!+ up.



> How does one obtain a "transaction amount"  -- that is not arrived at in the market


By observing a non-market transaction, such as a sale between related parties at a price far from market value.



> -- without a transaction?


I did not suggest there was no transaction.  That is merely some stupid $#!+ that you just made up and attributed to me because you have no choice but to be dishonest.



> Stop saying "Stop lying", Roy.


Then STOP LYING, STEVEN.



> It's rude, arrogant and presumptuous.


It's also the only rational response to lies.



> People have honest disagreements all the time and may well be disagreeing honestly, and communicating that disagreement in earnest.


That can indeed happen.  It just doesn't happen to happen with you.  And please note that it CANNOT happen when one side has chosen to rationalize evil, because that REQUIRES lying.  ALWAYS.



> You are neither omniscient nor are you the lone arbiter of truth.  Not agreeing with Roy L. is not tantamount to a "refusal to know facts", nor is it necessarily "lying".


I have identified many lies you have told about both what I have plainly written and the self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.  I never accuse anyone of lying merely because they disagree with me.  I identify their lies only when they have indisputably lied.



> Linked to, not equal to, not conflated with. Huge difference.


And I have been careful to make the difference clear.



> It's not gibberish.


You may be right: it's probably not honest enough to be gibberish.



> Every mainstream definition of market value has some time element to it (the price a given thing is expected to sell for within a given period of time - often referred to as a "reasonable" period of time).


But it is not "subjectively determined," it's determined by how long such items customarily take to trade in that market.  You just have to lie about that.  Stop lying, StEvil.



> That's pretty basic to economic value Roy, and varies with several factors, one being the types of good in question.  Real estate may have a time element of 30-60-90 days, while perishable goods may be considerably shorter, given their shelf life.  Market value also depends on the spatial region - which is why perishable produce in Manhatten will be naturally expected to have a different market value than the same produce that is grown and sold in the farming region that produced it.   Again, not gibberish - all pretty much Econ 101.


But it's gibberish -- or a bald lie -- to pretend that such market parameters are "subjectively determined."

----------


## Steven Douglas

> The "definition" of subjective that you repeatedly quote is ridiculous garbage, as it implies that as price is also influenced by feelings or opinion, it is *also* subjective.  But if that is the case, then your objection that value is subjective loses all force and becomes self-contradictory, because price is indisputably an objective fact, as you yourself have already stipulated.


Simple, Roy, and the root of your gross misapprehension: 

*The factual existence of two or more opinions does not, cannot, make the content of those opinions factual OR objective.*

That is what you can't seem to wrap your brain around, Roy.  Somewhere in your mind, objectivity about the fact of existence of opinions becomes (con)fused with the objectivity that you want infused into the opinions themselves. 




> I have already refuted and demolished you in post #5 of this thread StEvil.


When I said, "You never learn, do you?" I was only referring to your habit of resorting to childish invectives and ad hominem attacks. 




> Each individual opinion is subjective, but once more than one opinion is utilized, the result is not subjective by (the actual) definition.


Again your assertion that if two or more people "vote" (express two individual opinions about the same thing), "the result" (the fact those opinions existed? writing them down on a piece of paper?) makes the combined opinions suddenly "objective", rather than simply "_objectively observed_". 

The verbal sleight-of-hand you unwittingly(?) employ is in referring to the mere observation or recording of two or more opinions as "_the result_" without stating exactly what you mean by that.  The only thing "*the result*" could mean is the factual existence of two or more opinions, as they existed, or as they were recorded. Once again:

*The factual existence of two opinions is objective. This, however, does not make the content of those opinions, regardless how they are combined, objective.*

A market price requires two individual subjective inputs, each of which are influenced by personal feelings or opinions.  _The fact of that price_ is indeed objective, but it does not, and cannot ever, make _what that price represents_ (two subjective inputs) objective.  

*Subjective Input + Subjective Input =/≠ Objective Output?*

What you refer to as "_the result_" is the mere stating of the fact of existence as shown in some combined form. That is absolutely objective. We don't disagree about that. The fact of two people stating that they HATE something can indeed be objectively stated _as objective fact_.  _Not what they stated, both of which inputs - individually and collectively - are forever subjective; only the fact that they stated it._




> adj. 1. a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
> b. *Particular to a given person*; personal: subjective experience.
> 3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
> 4. Psychology Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
> 
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subjective
> sub·jec·tive [suhb-jek-tiv]
> adjective
> 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective). <-- your ad hoc addition, naughty you
> ...


All correct, albeit cherry picked by you, and leaving out definitions that didn't appeal to the point you wanted to make. 

Separately enumerated definitions are not like synonyms or euphemisms, Roy. They are not simply another way of saying essentially the same thing. Each definition stands on its own, as a separate definition in itself, and may be applicable in different fields or usage contexts (psychology, philosophy, business, economics, etc.,).

Nevertheless, you think you've found the magic loophole -- the mind alchemy pathway for turning subjective Pb (lead) to _objective-via-collectivization_ Au (gold) -- by keying in on the singular elements in your preferred definitions.  The problem is, those singular elements are not eliminated by collectivization.  OTHERWISE:

We could objectively state that Ptolemy's Earth-centric model of the universe, with its epicycles and equants, was at one time *n% objective fact*, given that is "_the result_" (historically) based on the number of people recorded who believed in and defended that model.  And yet we now know that it was never ANY percent correct, objective, or factual, regardless how many people "voted" on it. 

When Mars went into apparent "retrograde" (appeared periodically to thrice change velocity in the heavens) this was objectively recorded. It was a factual observation. Then came the epicycles and equant explanations, or conclusions, based on the false (subjective/non-objective)  assumptions/opinions that a) the Earth was the center of the universe around which  the Sun and every other body rotated, and b) that heavenly objects  moved in uniform circular motion.   

The only *objective facts* lay in the observations, not the numerous conclusions, explanations or opinions about them - all of which were influenced by subjective governing assumptions, or opinion. The objectivity was only in "the indisputable historical fact" of the existence of those subjective opinions - not the opinions themselves, or what they represented,_ none of which were objective or factual_ - _individually or collectively__._ 




> But when they are combined, they ALWAYS make one NON-subjective.  Always did, always will.


That's only because you are con-*FUSING* context with content, as the objective observer (the context) lends objectivity to what is being observed (the content).

TO WIT:




> But as soon as you say, "Those two agree Picasso is over-rated," you are saying something that is NOT SUBJECTIVE.


*YES!  BINGO.  CORRECTAMUNDO.*  "_I_" am saying something objective. Not "_those two_".  This "observation" (the only "objective fact") does NOT make either of their opinions objective. Neither does it make BOTH of their opinions objective. The objectivity is _ONLY IN THE OBSERVATION_, or factual existence -- of two individual and FOREVER SUBJECTIVE opinions. Furthermore, plurality is not required. I could objectively state that ONE such opinion exists, and it will be just as objectively observed and factual. But it won't make that opinion objective either. 

"Picasso is over-rated."  *(Subjective - Opinion)*"He said that Picasso is over-rated." *(Objective - Fact - Datum)* Not what was stated - _only the fact that it was stated_.
The factual existence or objective observation of ONE or more opinions does not lend ANY objectivity whatsoever to any of the opinions themselves.




> If your definition were accurate, then price would also be subjective, and you have ALREADY AGREED that it is objective.


I also agreed that saying "Those two agree Picasso is over-rated" is objective.  That has nothing to do with fact that their "votes", regardless how combined, are not ever objective.  Your gross misapprehension comes from your failure to understand the difference between the _fact or observation of price_ (the fact that two opinions indeed existed) vs. the _what that price actually represents_.  

Using a modicum of critical thinking skills: 

Price is "the result" (the existence or recording) of two subjective opinions. The objective factual existence or observation of price does NOT make either or both of those opinions objective. The _only objectivity_ is in the fact that those opinions existed, _not the opinions themselves_.  Stating that they exist (an objective fact) does not lend _any objectivity whatsoever_ to any opinions - ever - whether they be about price, bigotry, art, or anything else that "the objectively stated result" represents.

----------


## Roy L

> *The factual existence of two or more opinions does not, cannot, make the content of those opinions factual OR objective.*


Were you under an erroneous impression that that is responsive to my proof that you are wrong?



> That is what you can't seem to wrap your brain around, Roy.  Somewhere in your mind, objectivity about the fact of existence of opinions becomes (con)fused with the objectivity that you want infused into the opinions themselves.


Gibberish spewed in an attempt to avoid knowing facts.



> Again your assertion that if two or more people "vote" (express two individual opinions about the same thing), "the result" (the fact those opinions existed? writing them down on a piece of paper?) makes the combined opinions suddenly "objective", rather than simply "_objectively observed_".


The result of a vote is an objective fact, just as a transaction price is.  The fact that individual opinions or feelings may have influenced that result does not make it subjective.  You are simply wrong about what "subjective" means.



> The only thing "*the result*" could mean is the factual existence of two or more opinions, as they existed, or as they were recorded.


As they affected objective reality.



> Once again:
> 
> *The factual existence of two opinions is objective. This, however, does not make the content of those opinions, regardless how they are combined, objective.*


It's dishonest to pretend a tautological fact constitutes an objection to an argument that is logically consistent with that fact.  I have neither said nor implied that the content of any opinion is made objective through being used in formulating an objective result.  You simply have it backwards.  The progression from subjective opinion to objective result does not imply that the objectivity of the result makes the opinions objective.



> A market price requires two individual subjective inputs, each of which are influenced by personal feelings or opinions.  _The fact of that price_ is indeed objective,


OK, so you agree that the definition of "subjective" that you have been totally reliant on is in fact false and stupid.  Good.



> but it does not, and cannot ever, make _what that price represents_ (two subjective inputs) objective.


No one claims it is the inputs that are objective.



> All correct, albeit cherry picked by you, and leaving out definitions that didn't appeal to the point you wanted to make.


Leaving out the irrelevant senses.  See post #5.



> Separately enumerated definitions are not like synonyms or euphemisms, Roy. They are not simply another way of saying essentially the same thing. Each definition stands on its own, as a separate definition in itself, and may be applicable in different fields or usage contexts (psychology, philosophy, business, economics, etc.,).


But they all agree that subjectivity is not established by a mere _influence_ of personal feeling or opinion, but only by the absence of anything BUT personal feeling or opinion.



> Nevertheless, you think you've found the magic loophole -- the mind alchemy pathway for turning subjective Pb (lead) to _objective-via-collectivization_ Au (gold) -- by keying in on the singular elements in your preferred definitions.  The problem is, those singular elements are not eliminated by collectivization.


They are indisputably eliminated by collectivization, as the collective result is not singular.



> OTHERWISE:
> 
> We could objectively state that Ptolemy's Earth-centric model of the universe, with its epicycles and equants, was at one time *n% objective fact*, given that is "_the result_" (historically) based on the number of people recorded who believed in and defended that model.


No, we couldn't.  That's nothing but a non sequitur fallacy.



> And yet we now know that it was never ANY percent correct, objective, or factual, regardless how many people "voted" on it.


Actually, it was constructed precisely to reconcile observation with religious belief, and gave a reasonably accurate account of the observed motions of the planets (certainly a much better one than mainstream neoclassical economics can boast of its subject matter).



> When Mars went into apparent "retrograde" (appeared periodically to thrice change velocity in the heavens) this was objectively recorded. It was a factual observation. Then came the epicycles and equant explanations, or conclusions, based on the false (subjective/non-objective)  assumptions/opinions that a) the Earth was the center of the universe around which  the Sun and every other body rotated, and b) that heavenly objects  moved in uniform circular motion.   
> 
> The only *objective facts* lay in the observations, not the numerous conclusions, explanations or opinions about them - all of which were influenced by subjective governing assumptions, or opinion. The objectivity was only in "the indisputable historical fact" of the existence of those subjective opinions - not the opinions themselves, or what they represented,_ none of which were objective or factual_ - _individually or collectively__._


And...?  That is precisely the same level of objectivity that characterizes economic value: THE FACT THAT certain people -- market participants -- hold certain views about what an item is worth, and therefore what it can be expected to trade for.



> That's only because you are con-*FUSING* context with content, as the objective observer (the context) lends objectivity to what is being observed (the content).


Talk about confusing....



> TO WIT:
> *YES!  BINGO.  CORRECTAMUNDO.*  "_I_" am saying something objective. Not "_those two_".  This "observation" (the only "objective fact") does NOT make either of their opinions objective. Neither does it make BOTH of their opinions objective. The objectivity is _ONLY IN THE OBSERVATION_, or factual existence -- of two individual and FOREVER SUBJECTIVE opinions. Furthermore, plurality is not required. I could objectively state that ONE such opinion exists, and it will be just as objectively observed and factual. But it won't make that opinion objective either.


_Wrong._  An entirely new objective reality arises when _two_ opinions are observed: a comparison.  This comparison of subjective opinions and experiences is precisely the foundation of all empirical science.



> "Picasso is over-rated."  *(Subjective - Opinion)*"He said that Picasso is over-rated." *(Objective - Fact - Datum)* Not what was stated - _only the fact that it was stated_.
> The factual existence or objective observation of ONE or more opinions does not lend ANY objectivity whatsoever to any of the opinions themselves.


This formula will not become relevant no matter how many times you repeat it.



> I also agreed that saying "Those two agree Picasso is over-rated" is objective.  That has nothing to do with fact that their "votes", regardless how combined, are not ever objective.


Wrong again.  A vote cast is an objective fact.



> Your gross misapprehension comes from your failure to understand the difference between the _fact or observation of price_ (the fact that two opinions indeed existed) vs. the _what that price actually represents_.


No.  It is YOU who do not understand that price is not merely the fact that two opinions existed, but that those opinions were crystallized and objectified by objective action: the exchange.



> Using a modicum of critical thinking skills:


Don't make me laugh.



> Price is "the result" (the existence or recording) of two subjective opinions.


Refuted above.



> The objective factual existence or observation of price does NOT make either or both of those opinions objective.


No one said it did, so that cannot become relevant no matter how many times you repeat it.



> The _only objectivity_ is in the fact that those opinions existed, _not the opinions themselves_.  Stating that they exist (an objective fact) does not lend _any objectivity whatsoever_ to any opinions - ever - whether they be about price, bigotry, art, or anything else that "the objectively stated result" represents.


Again, that is the same ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> *
> The fact that individual opinions or feelings may have influenced that result does not make it subjective.* 
> 
> You are simply wrong about what "subjective" means.


Not me, Roy. _Oxford_. That is who you are disagreeing with. Take it up with them.  




> *
> Oxford Dictionary:*  [SOURCE]
> 
> *subjective* - adj.
> *1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions
> 
> *


Not my words, Roy. No personal spin-botched ad-hoc repaired definition like the stunt you pulled earlier. And you can't tell me that I'm wrong about what it means, because I'm not offering a paraphrase, interpretation or explanation of any kind (even though I'm pretty sure you will). Just a direct _verbatim_ quote from the source. Oxford's definition of subjective is concise, clear enough for anyone to understand and speaks for itself just fine, as worded.  And they must feel pretty strongly about that one definition, given the only other variation or alternate definition offered on that page is the secondary definition of subjective that applies to _Grammar_. 

According to Oxford, not me, anything "*based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions*" is _subjective_ - by definition.

Now let me weigh this in my mind: Roy L./Oxford, Roy L./Oxford, Roy L./Oxford...perhaps you're right; maybe _Oxford's definition_  (not mine) is wrong after all, and Roy L. should write a better dictionary, or argue why his favorite dictionary and definition are to be preferred. Until then, I have it on good authority that at least some of the people at Oxford have some familiarity with the English language, which might even qualify as authoritative. I'm going to have to go with ::: drumroll,  rimshot ::: Oxford's definition.  Final answer.

----------


## Roy L

> Not me, Roy. _Oxford_. That is who you are disagreeing with. Take it up with them.


I already proved it false.  Having used many dictionaries professionally, I am not impressed by incompetent lexicography.



> Not my words, Roy. You can't tell me that I'm wrong about what it means, because I offer no paraphrase, interpretation or explanation.


You're wrong about what it means because your source is wrong.



> Just a direct quote from them. The definition is clear enough, and speaks for itself.


And as I have proved, it is self-evidently false.



> Also, no personal spin-botched ad-hoc repaired definition either, like the stunt you pulled earlier.


Lie.



> I'm just quoting Oxford's definition of subjective. _Verbatim._  They don't even offer up other variations or definitions on that page. Just the one.


Which should have been your clue that it was useless.



> According to Oxford, not me, "*based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions*" makes a thing _subjective_ - by definition.


But if you accept that definition, the word becomes completely useless for your purposes, because virtually anything is then subjective, and calling value "subjective" has no implications for its usefulness.  Actual transaction prices are also then "subjective."  A runner's officially recorded time is "subjective."  WW II is "subjective."



> Now let me weigh this in my mind: Roy L./Oxford, Roy L./Oxford, Roy L./Oxford...perhaps you're right; maybe _Oxford's definition_  (not mine) is wrong after all, and Roy L. should write a better dictionary, or argue why his favorite dictionary and definition are to be preferred. Until then, I have it on good authority that at least some of the people at Oxford have some familiarity with the English language, which might even qualify as authoritative. I'm going to have to go with ::: drumroll,  rimshot ::: Oxford's definition.  Final answer.


OK.  Now explain why value being "subjective" BY _THAT_ DEFINITION implies anything relevant about the concept's usefulness in economic policy analysis.  Clearly being "subjective" doesn't stop price from being a fact of objective reality, so what would stop us from using the concept of value with equal confidence?

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I already proved it false.  Having used many dictionaries professionally, I am not impressed by incompetent lexicography.
> 
> You're wrong about what it means because your source is wrong.


OK, so the Oxford Dictionary obviously doesn't fit with (isn't "useful" to) your assumptions, so your answer is to simply discard that definition and dismiss it as incompetent lexicography on the part of Oxford.  So now we move onto why you have concluded such a thing...




> But if you accept that definition, the word becomes completely useless for your purposes, because virtually anything is then subjective, and calling value "subjective" has no implications for its usefulness.


Actually, it becomes _very_ useful for _my_ purposes, and for the purposes of Austrian economists interested in reality only. It is only completely useless to _your purposes_, and also useless to the Church of Neoclassical Economics with its many fatally flawed assumptions. 

You are wrong that "virtually anything is subjective" under Oxford's definition, as will be explained.  By contrast, *NOTHING CAN BE SUBJECTIVE* under your fatally flawed understanding, because the nature of literally every occurrence, including *every opinion ever uttered*, INSTANTLY becomes objective at the moment of occurrence based on the fact of its existence, or the fact that it can objectively observed and recorded.  




> Actual transaction prices are also then "subjective."  A runner's officially recorded time is "subjective."  WW II is "subjective."


That is correct, Roy. They are all subjective. _All of them_. Not the fact or observation of their existence, but the nature of each fact. Transaction prices, a runner's time, WWII, etc., are all _objectively observed_ facts of historical reality. The nature of each fact, however - what those facts represent and how they came into existence - are all subjective. _Forever_. 

*The objectivity of an observation does not lend any objectivity to the nature of the object under consideration.* 

Thus, "Those two agree that Picasso is over-rated" may be objectively observed and recorded as fact. However, the LIMIT to that objectivity _ends_ with the fact that the opinions were made. It does not extend beyond that.  That objectivity is entirely separate from and does not EVER extend to the nature of those facts - the object under consideration - which remain _forever subjective_. 

If the object under consideration was objective to begin with (e.g., a voltage drop measured across any two points in an electrical circuit), then the nature of the object under consideration remains forever objective.  If the object under consideration was subjective to begin with (one or more opinions polled), the nature of the object under consideration remains forever subjective, regardless of the fact of its existence, or how objectively it was recorded or observed.




> OK. Now explain why value being "subjective" BY _THAT_ DEFINITION implies anything relevant about the concept's usefulness in economic policy analysis.


Whose economic policy analysis?  Under which paradigm?  Are you referring to the Ptolemaic equivalents produced today by so many neoclassical economists with their flawed definitions and faulty assumptions?  You poo-poo Oxford for its lexicographical incompetence. I prefer to poo-poo the Church of Neoclassical Economics as the source of incompetence.  They're the ones who require complex ad hoc explanations and strictly esoteric definitions for theory repair, the way Ptolemaic Universe Worshipers required increasingly complex epicycles, equant and deferents (lies upon more lies) to explain what perfectly uniform circular motion could not.   

If you are Roy, I can see where Oxford's definition would be completely useless and must appear flawed, because it goes against one of your fatally flawed foundational assumptions; namely, that price itself is not just an _objectively observed_ historical fact, but rather that the very nature of the object under consideration magically changes from objective (Pb) to objective (Au) once it has been observed and recorded. This magician's sleight-of-hand is accomplished by shifting POV's from subjective causal agent to the POV of the objective observer.  

Not even a neoclassical economic Houdini can escape the subjectivity box under Oxford's definition. This is because any RESULT that is *based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions* remains subjective by definition.  So the neoclassical economic Houdini, quite predictably, drowns.  But not really - because anyone living in a fictional world can escape from a real world box. Just call it something else. It won't reflect reality, but at least you can escape.

Oxford's definition of subjective is first and foremost honest, as it accurately describes reality and allows us to trace and attempt to account for subjectivity that forever exists at its core, regardless of the scale or number of historical inputs. WWII occurred from a network of subjective inputs (all *based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions*), each an historical fact which can be objectively observed, recorded and analyzed. But the mere existence or recording of these events NEVER means that WWII was an "objective" event - only an _objectively observed event that was forever subjective in nature_.

How is that definition useful to economic analysis? (not "economic policy analysis" - _normative_)

Using the accurate _real world_ Oxford definition, an Austrian economist like Ludwig von Mises can realize that "value," meaning exchange value, is always the result of subjective value judgements; that there is no price of objects or things that can be determined without taking these judgements into account.  And merely accounting for these judgments as they are observed does not make the nature of any of these _judgments-cum-events_ objective -- only _objectively observed_. 

So I liken Ludwig von Mises to Johannes Kepler, who after more than two thousand years of Aristotelian/Ptolemaic normalcy bias and reverence to a fatally flawed and unbelievably complex model, realizes that bodies can't be explained as uniform perfect circles that rotate about a false center, with ever-increasing complexity of epicycles and equant to explain what is being observed, and who doesn't require a complex specialized "non-real world" definition of anything at all to fit with his assumptions.

It should be noted that Ptolemaic models of the universe were VERY GOOD at approximating and predicting motions - especially when myriad (and required) ad hoc repairs were applied to those models. _That did not make the underlying governing assumptions in any way correct_. 




> Clearly being "subjective" doesn't stop price from being a fact of objective reality, so what would stop us from using the concept of value with equal confidence?


Now we get to the crux of the matter in the form of the oft-begged but rarely asked question:  

*Is the nature of price itself objective?*  Or is it merely _objectively observed_? 

The answer should be obvious to anyone, save perhaps a neoclassical economist with his head forever stuck in a vacuum. 

The observation and existence of things like price, a runner's time, an opinion poll on taste or preference, or any other event that is subjective in nature, really does exist, and may be objectively observed and recorded as historical fact.  The *nature* of all these subjective events, however, are _forever subjective_; not the fact of their existence, mind you, or the fact that they can be objectively observed, but the nature of the objects under consideration - the very reason such facts exist, and what those facts actually represent. Once subjective, forever subjective.  *Including the nature of price*.

----------


## Roy L

> OK, so the Oxford Dictionary obviously doesn't fit with (isn't "useful" to) your assumptions, so your answer is to simply discard that definition and dismiss it as incompetent lexicography on the part of Oxford.  So now we move onto why you have concluded such a thing...


I dismiss the Oxford definition because it is self-evidently garbage.  The Oxford definition does not describe vernacular usage, does not describe any known technical usage, and does not match good dictionaries' definitions.



> Actually, it becomes _very_ useful for _my_ purposes,


I.e., deceit and evasion.



> and for the purposes of Austrian economists interested in reality only.


There is no interest whatever in reality among Austrian School economists.  It is a school that is explicitly and proudly non-empirical.



> It is only completely useless to _your purposes_, and also useless to the Church of Neoclassical Economics with its many fatally flawed assumptions.


It is useless to the purposes of anyone who wishes to communicate clearly and honestly (i.e., not you).



> You are wrong that "virtually anything is subjective" under Oxford's definition, as will be explained.


I am correct, and your "explanation" will be fallacious, absurd and dishonest garbage.



> By contrast, *NOTHING CAN BE SUBJECTIVE* under your fatally flawed understanding,


That's obviously a lie.



> because the nature of literally every occurrence, including *every opinion ever uttered*, INSTANTLY becomes objective at the moment of occurrence based on the fact of its existence, or the fact that it can objectively observed and recorded.


Which subjective things can't be.  Thanks for agreeing that you lied.



> That is correct, Roy. They are all subjective. _All of them_. Not the fact or observation of their existence, but the nature of each fact. Transaction prices, a runner's time, WWII, etc., are all _objectively observed_ facts of historical reality. The nature of each fact, however - what those facts represent and how they came into existence - are all subjective. _Forever_.


WW II is forever subjective??!?!?!

The inevitable -- and predicted -- descent into absurdity. 



> *The objectivity of an observation does not lend any objectivity to the nature of the object under consideration.*


Yes, it does.  The fact that it can be observed objectively _makes it_ objective.



> If the object under consideration was objective to begin with (e.g., a voltage drop measured across any two points in an electrical circuit), then the nature of the object under consideration remains forever objective.  If the object under consideration was subjective to begin with (one or more opinions polled), the nature of the object under consideration remains forever subjective, regardless of the fact of its existence, or how objectively it was recorded or observed.


LOL!  That electrical circuit was created based on someone's opinions.  By your stupid, fallacious, absurd and dishonest definition, that makes the voltage drop subjective.



> Whose economic policy analysis?  Under which paradigm?  Are you referring to the Ptolemaic equivalents produced today by so many neoclassical economists with their flawed definitions and faulty assumptions?


Any policy analysis.



> You poo-poo Oxford for its lexicographical incompetence. I prefer to poo-poo the Church of Neoclassical Economics as the source of incompetence.  They're the ones who require complex ad hoc explanations and strictly esoteric definitions for theory repair, the way Ptolemaic Universe Worshipers required increasingly complex epicycles, equant and deferents (lies upon more lies) to explain what perfectly uniform circular motion could not.


I am quite in agreement with you about neoclassical economics.  



> If you are Roy, I can see where Oxford's definition would be completely useless and must appear flawed, because it goes against one of your fatally flawed foundational assumptions; namely, that price itself is not just an _objectively observed_ historical fact, but rather that the very nature of the object under consideration magically changes from objective (Pb) to objective (Au) once it has been observed and recorded. This magician's sleight-of-hand is accomplished by shifting POV's from subjective causal agent to the POV of the objective observer.


Price is objective because it observably occurs in the physical universe external to the mind.



> Not even a neoclassical economic Houdini can escape the subjectivity box under Oxford's definition.


Nothing with any human input can escape it.



> Oxford's definition of subjective is first and foremost honest, as it accurately describes reality


It is first and foremost DIShonest, as it DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS reality.



> and allows us to trace and attempt to account for subjectivity that forever exists at its core, regardless of the scale or number of historical inputs. WWII occurred from a network of subjective inputs (all *based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions*), each an historical fact which can be objectively observed, recorded and analyzed. But the mere existence or recording of these events NEVER means that WWII was an "objective" event - only an _objectively observed event that was forever subjective in nature_.


To claim that WW II was subjective in nature is absurd and dishonest.  Everyone reading this knows that, including you.



> How is that definition useful to economic analysis? (not "economic policy analysis" - _normative_)


It permits facts to be identified.



> Using the accurate _real world_ Oxford definition, an Austrian economist like Ludwig von Mises can realize that "value," meaning exchange value, is always the result of subjective value judgements; that there is no price of objects or things that can be determined without taking these judgements into account.  And merely accounting for these judgments as they are observed does not make the nature of any of these _judgments-cum-events_ objective -- only _objectively observed_.


Anything that can be objectively observed IS objective.



> So I liken Ludwig von Mises to Johannes Kepler, who after more than two thousand years of Aristotelian/Ptolemaic normalcy bias and reverence to a fatally flawed and unbelievably complex model, realizes that bodies can't be explained as uniform perfect circles that rotate about a false center, with ever-increasing complexity of epicycles and equant to explain what is being observed, and who doesn't require a complex specialized "non-real world" definition of anything at all to fit with his assumptions.


You insult Kepler.



> *Is the nature of price itself objective?*  Or is it merely _objectively observed_? The answer should be obvious to anyone, save perhaps a neoclassical economist with his head forever stuck in a vacuum.


It IS obvious to everyone: a transaction is an objective event, and the price at which it occurs is therefore objective.



> The observation and existence of things like price, a runner's time, an opinion poll on taste or preference, or any other event that is subjective in nature, really does exist, and may be objectively observed and recorded as historical fact.  The *nature* of all these subjective events, however, are _forever subjective_; not the fact of their existence, mind you, or the fact that they can be objectively observed, but the nature of the objects under consideration - the very reason such facts exist, and what those facts actually represent. Once subjective, forever subjective.  *Including the nature of price*.


The inevitable descent into absurdity.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> That electrical circuit was created based on someone's opinions. By your stupid, fallacious, absurd and dishonest definition, that makes the voltage drop subjective.


Your extreme difficulty comes from not being able to distinguish between _subjective_ versus _objective_  components as it relates to different objects under consideration (grammar usage of the word object).  In the case of the electrical circuit, there are two objects under consideration:

1) _the reason for the measurement's existence_ (*subjective* - *is* _based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinion_) and
  2) _the measurement itself_ (*objective* - *is not* _based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinion_) 

For you only _the  existence_ of a thing is considered (which I agree is indeed forever objective). The  _reason for its existence_, however, is disregarded; not even acknowledged by you as being relevant.  

If you ever regarded the reason for a thing's existence the distinction between objective and subjective would become immediately obvious in all cases (_war, lava flow, opinions, planetary rotation, design choices, the square root of pi, something sold for a given price)_. 

By regarding only the fact of a thing's existence (POV of the self-centered observer ONLY), all things become objective (not just objectively observed, but objective in your mind by virtue of observation): _war, lava flow, opinions, planetary rotation, design choices, the square root of pi, something sold for a given price_. Not only does it all become objective, it is impossible for _anything_ to be considered subjective under ANY definition! Not just Oxford's. 

The only reason that NOTHING can ever be subjective in your mind (not even in your mind only, isn't that funny?) is because you don't regard the reason for a thing's existence - be it wars, opinions, price or anything else.  The ONLY 'object of your consideration' for you (grammatically speaking), is the fact of something's existence, which includes LITERALLY EVERYTHING, including that which might otherwise be considered subjective. Name ONE subjective thing, and using your reasoning I can immediately render it objective - by merely objectively stating that it exists!   

*Example:*  "Those two said that geolbertarianism is absolute rot - utter rubbish not worth of consideration."   

I'm sorry, Roy, but once I truthfully say that they said it (and enter them onto a spreadsheet to boot) those opinions are "results" - nothing subjective about them once they are stated and noted and especially if they are objectively verified. Those opinions are now indisputable facts of objective reality, and therefore _instantly objective_. 

The physical circuit itself - not its reason for existence but only the reality of its existence as a physical object - is not subjective in nature, because _the fact of its existence_ is not *based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinion*. Only its _reason for existence_ is. Likewise, _the reason_ for a particular voltage drop designed into a circuit across two given points is indeed FOREVER subjective in nature.  _The actual measurement_ of that voltage drop is not subjective at all (even when measured by the designer). That voltage drop is whatever it is. Objectively, factually.  And since _the measurement_ itself is not *based on or influenced by anyone's personal feelings, tastes, or opinion*, _the measurement_ is also not subjective.   _Ever_. 




> I dismiss the Oxford definition because it is self-evidently garbage.
> There is no interest whatever in reality among Austrian School economists.  
> To claim that WW II was subjective in nature is absurd and dishonest. 
> Anything that can be objectively observed IS objective.


What are you even doing here, Roy? You're in another universe altogether; one where Oxford definitions are self-evidently garbage, Austrian School economists have no interest in reality, and both wars and personal opinions are objective in nature. It's not just something you believe - you also believe that it's something everyone reading here, including me, knows! 

That sounds positively autistic to me. No concept of "the other" except as it exists in your own mind. 

Apart from your alternate and self-evidently false universe that does not account for the "others" and their reasons behind anything as being of any relevance, in the real world:

All prices can be objectively observed (as having occurred) but the reason for their existence is entirely subjective in nature. All wars and all personal opinions can be objectively observed (as having occurred) but the reason for their existence is entirely subjective in nature.  And that is why the Oxford definition of subjective is not only useful, but a spot on description of the _objective reality of subjectivity_ (try getting your head around that one).


EDIT: I don't think you have the capacity to reason this through at all, Roy. No judgments, and nothing against you personally at all.  You just don't have the capacity. So no wonder it's like talking to a turing machine, as helmeth remarked, and no wonder that you dismiss so many things, and so often, as lies or gibberish. To you - I think it really is.

----------


## Roy L

> Your extreme difficulty comes from not being able to distinguish between _subjective_ versus _objective_  components as it relates to different objects under consideration (grammar usage of the word object).  In the case of the electrical circuit, there are two objects under consideration:
> 
> 1) _the reason for the measurement's existence_ (subjective - *is* _based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinion_) and
>   2) _the measurement itself_ (objective - *is not* _based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinion_)


Already disproved.  The measurement itself indisputably *IS* "based on or influenced by personal feelings, taste or opinion": it is based on the circuit designer's OPINION about how the circuit should be designed.

What is happening here is very simple, Steven: you have been proved OBJECTIVELY WRONG, and you are now saying, doing, and believing ANYTHING WHATEVER in order to avoid knowing that fact.



> For you only _the  existence_ of a thing is considered (which I agree is indeed forever objective). The  _reason for its existence_, however, is disregarded; not even acknowledged by you as being relevant.


Obvious lie.  AS I EXPLAINED, the reason for the circuit's existence is the exact reason the voltage drop is, by your stupid, brain-dead and dishonest definition, "subjective."  Stop lying.



> If you ever regarded the reason for a thing's existence the distinction between objective and subjective would become immediately obvious in all cases


It IS obvious:

Existing independently of any observer = objective
Existing only in one person's mind = subjective



> war,


You say subjective; I say objective.



> _l_ava flow


We both say objective.



> opinions,


We both say subjective.



> planetary rotation,


Both objective.



> design choices,


Depends what you mean by, "choices."  If you mean someone's preference for one design over another, then it is subjective for both of us.  If you mean the choice Toyota made for the design of a particular model of car, then it is subjective for you, objective for me.



> the square root of pi,


Objective for both of us.



> something sold for a given price.


Subjective for you, objective for me.

Is it clearer for you now?



> By regarding only the fact of a thing's existence (POV of the self-centered observer ONLY), all things become objective (not just objectively observed, but objective by virtue of observation): _war, lava flow, opinions, planetary rotation, design choices, the square root of pi, something sold for a given price_.


Wrong.  See above.



> Not only does it all become objective, it is impossible for _anything_ to be considered subjective under ANY definition! Not just Oxford's. Name ONE subjective thing, and I can immediately render it objective by merely objectively stating that it exists!


Wrong.  Stating that an opinion exists does not make it objective, because it still exists only in the mind of the person who holds it.  It only becomes objective when expressed in observable action that exists independently of the person holding the opinion.  For example, a voter may hold the opinion that Obama is a better candidate than Romney.  That opinion is subjective.  But after the person votes for Obama, it is an objective fact, because their vote continues to exist even if they die on the way out of the polling station.  If they hadn't voted or otherwise recorded their opinion, it would cease to exist when they died.  THAT IS WHAT MAKES IT SUBJECTIVE.



> The physical circuit itself - not its reason for existence but only the reality of its existence as a physical object - is not subjective in nature, because _the fact of its existence_ is not *based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinion*.


*YES IT IS, AS ALREADY PROVED.*  It exists *only* because of the designer's *subjective opinion* that it should be made that way.



> Only its _reason for existence_ is.


But that MAKES it subjective, according to your stupid, brain-dead and dishonest definition.



> Likewise, _the reasons_ why a particular land parcel has a particular market value are indeed FOREVER subjective in nature.  _The actual measurement_ of that value by the market is not subjective at all (even when determined by a qualified appraiser). That value is whatever it is.


There.  Fixed it for you.

And thanks for explicitly abandoning the idiotic Oxford definition of "subjective," under which the voltage drop in a circuit is indisputably subjective.



> And since _the measurement_ itself is not *based on or influenced by anyone's personal feelings, tastes, or opinion*, _the measurement_ is also not subjective.   _Ever_.


Oh, but it is, according to your brain-dead and dishonest definition of subjective: the measurement is *based on or influenced by* the measurer's *opinion* of the best way to connect the meter to the circuit, the voltmeter designer's *opinion* of how to design an accurate, sturdy, and readable voltmeter that can be produced at an affordable price, etc.

Your weaseling and evasion can't get you out of this one, Steven, sorry.



> What are you even doing here, Roy? You're in another universe altogether; one where Oxford definitions are self-evidently garbage,


That one is, anyway, and I've proved it.



> Austrian School economists have no interest in reality,


Other than to lie about it to rationalize privilege, justify injustice and excuse evil.  Anyone who has read much of Hans-Hermann Hoppe's evil, irrational filth will be aware of that.



> and both wars and personal opinions are objective in nature.


Ah, now you're just lying again.  That feels more comfortable, doesn't it?



> It's not just something you believe - you also believe that it's something everyone reading here, including me, knows!


Bingo.



> That sounds positively autistic to me. No concept of "the other" except as it exists in your own mind.


Incomprehensible.



> All prices can be objectively observed (as having occurred) but the reason for their existence is entirely subjective in nature.


Like the voltage drop in the circuit.



> All wars and all personal opinions can be objectively observed (as having occurred)


That's clearly just another lie from you.  Personal opinions not expressed in objectively observable action CAN'T be objectively observed.  That is very much the point.



> but the reason for their existence is entirely subjective in nature.


The reasons for wars are not subjective.  You know this, and so does everyone else reading this.



> And that is why the Oxford definition of subjective is not only useful, but a spot on description of the _objective reality of subjectivity_ (try getting your head around that one).


I've demolished the brain-dead Oxford definition, which (clue time!) does not agree with good dictionaries or any ordinary usage.



> EDIT: I don't think you have the capacity to reason this through at all, Roy. No judgments, and nothing against you personally at all.  You just don't have the capacity. So no wonder it's like talking to a turing machine, as helmeth remarked, and no wonder that you dismiss so many things, and so often, as lies or gibberish. To you - I think it really is.


It definitely -- and objectively -- is.  But it is not *my* reasoning capacity that is deficient, Steven, as my degree in philosophy, with honors, from an internationally respected university proves.

----------

