💧💎 The Value Of Things - How Do We Determine It? 

So to speak.

Max He means to have so much money it seems less important.

u mean inflation

In United States you need to make ~$85,000 to experience that. Delta the current loans and geographic location. You will experience diminishing marginal utility when you earn income satisfying three basic levels of Maslow's pyramid. Once you have that security you will work to develop self esteem and actualization. The vicious cycle is that to earn such income you starting from lucrative occupation by definition. So you esteem and actualization will direct you in the path you're familiar with (of making more stuff that yields money)

@@ilham1634 LOOOL SMART ONE

Thanks:) It's not shame, it's just respect for our viewers ears:) It's better with native speaker.

Basically anytime before the 20th century. The further back in time you go the less far you have to walk for vast swathes of free land.

P....Pre...President Valentine??

True. Too many people take notice of perceived value

The value comes from the fact that many people want apples. Apples are a staple of grocery stores in the west BECAUSE we assign such great value to it even as an often leisure food. If people suddenly stopped wanting to eat apples, it can be assumed that there are other means by which they can satisfy for their hunger, so the value would drop simply because demand is lost for whatever reason. The reason why some apples are more expensive relative to a normal apple is because their value is determined by the people who would desire a less common apple in the first place. In other words, what's virtually the same product may have a wildly greater price because their value will forever be determined by people who DESIRE that specific product for whatever reason, in which case it is given that their desire have surpassed their needs and the product operates as some form of a luxury.

Float Circuit, Gold is more longed for than Lithium by more people, therefore people are more likely to pay more money for Gold per unit than Lithium. It’s like the commodity side of the stock market; if the demand for Lithium goes up for whatever reason, the price will go up. In this current crisis we can see the demand of 5.56 ammo go up as more people are willing to pay more for a product that last month was not sought after as much. Same with hand sanitizers, 3M masks, and TP.

lithium didnt look shiny! it's not the function that matters but the aesthetic!

Gold is actually far, far rarer than lithium, both in the universe and on Earth - about 18,000 times rarer in Earth's crust. Gold is also very pretty with a quite unique and pleasant natural colour, and it's easy to work with and doesn't get less beautiful with time (unlike silver which tarnishes), so you can make very nice looking, long-lasting things that are also easy to clean out of it easily; and especially, somewhere along the line someone realised that gold is a good material to make money out of. It also has other uses, but you see: it's rare, and in huge demand, which means people are willing to exchange a great deal of value to get it. Lithium is more common, but until recently hasn't had uses anywhere as 'important', or at least as widespread and common, to mankind - mostly because we didn't know it existed until 1817, whereas gold has been known and used since before writing was invented. But as more uses are found for it, like medicine and battery technology, we require it more and more, and its price has risen; and later on in the future when it becomes an important fuel for nuclear fusion, it will become even more valuable; but because it is so abundant, it will still be much cheaper.

It is a agreed price between consumer and the seller between two of them hold different value

No he's right. It's not simultaneous. I've read it in school

@@SwampyPanda3 What does this mean? Becasue you read it in school makes it "right?"

Contentment

power lust for power is inexhaustible its never satisfied you hunger for more - former president from asia

You actually listen to that idoit

You are right, indeed. Also, the video explains value for a single-use product, not a compound service like you're describing. Sure if such a product like a car (which involves hundreds of additional factors, unlike apples and pears) would be used as example, then the video would be longer, but this doesn't mean it's not already complete. You can just branch the concept to the variety of products and services required to build this one product and the areas in which it influences, and this simple (but curious) concept is still in its core.

@@victorvaz3693 Thanks very much! From my point of view, it is not important whether the creation of value is related to the sale of a car or to the sale of apples. The principle is always the same. * Value is a social relationship The Austrian School explains the value only subjectively. But value is a social relationship. Such is formed between people, the value concretely between exchange partners on the market. There is no value in objects, nor between people and objects. It only exists between people! * The objective part of the value A social relationship must have an objective part, because it goes beyond a single individual and acts on the social level between two, namely the exchange partners. This objective share of value is the common value that the exchange partners agree on for the exchange. At the bazaar they come to an agreement in dialogue, in the department store through the unilateral adaptation of the buyer to the seller's specifications. If they cannot agree on a common value, there will be no exchange - the purchase contract / invoice cannot contain a sales price and a different purchase price. * The subjective part of the value But a social relationship must also contain subjective elements. These are the subjective reflections of the objective magnitude of value in both exchange partners. Before the exchange, these are usually of different sizes. The common value is thus formed with the help of subjective values. During or after the exchange, the exchange partners can also have subjective values about the goods and the value equivalent (money). But these are not part of the value relationship, they are one-sided and therefore not socially relevant in the sense of value. * The value will be initiated by weighted needs The fact that there is any exchange at all is caused by the weighted needs of the exchange partners, which direct them towards the goods to be exchanged. * Another objective fact relating to the value What applies to the car manufacturer and the apple grower in the same way - they have costs. Marx parameterized these as c and v and placed them in his value formula: W = c + v + m. W value c constant capital (raw materials, buildings, with Marx machines, electricity, with farmers land, fertilizers, water, insect control etc.9 v variable capital, with Marx the cost of human labor s surplus value In Marx, value is formed in this way on the production side of commodity society. But there is still no surplus value on the production side. The buyer has to pay for it on the market. Since the surplus value is part of the value, one can deduce from this, among other things, that the value is formed on the market and is assigned there both to the goods and to the value equivalent. What the Austrian School does not mention is the fact that the production of apples, cars, etc. must on average take place in such a way that the entrepreneur / farmer gets his costs c + v fully reimbursed with the sale of the products and an surplus value that he considers sufficient to. With other words the formation of values usually must take place in exactly this way. But it cannot be deduced from this that it also takes place in this way. It may be that the entrepreneur / farmer succeeds in getting the costs reimbursed with the sale of the products, but no surplus value. It may even be that he does not even get his costs reimbursed in full. Value formation is not based directly on work, as Marx put it. However, it is also not purely subjective, as the Austrian School has it (marginal utility theory). The value corresponds to the recognition of expenses. This can be shown with Marx's value formula, if one corrects the incorrect description of value formation presented above and specifies the value formula for the production side of commodity society (expected value) and also for the market (real value).

They had diamonds long, long before him. In Greek they were called "adamas" - "unbreakble" - from which we get the words "adamant/adamantine", but also "diamond" itself. Diamonds occur naturally, and in some places they can be found lying around in streams, and were most abundant in India, from where they had been imported for thousands of years before his time.

Lab grown diamonds are cheap, but can be found overpriced at small jewelers.😢

Were diamonds even in existence during Aristotle's era?*

@@BuyTheDip627 or ... Did diamonds even exist in Aristotle's era

No guys, clearly he meant “has diamond not be in eristotle age.”

no I mean diamon't

"Don't believe everything that is on the internet" abraham Lincoln

I guess my next question is how to make things more or less valuable in peoples eyes.

Yes. It's all arbitrary and relative, but it's measurable by looking at what people are willing to exchange for things. If someone exchanges 5 apples for 7 pears, then we can say an apple is worth 5 sevenths of a pear. We use money to abstract this: a universal way of saying what everything is worth relative to everything or anything else, by basically inventing a unit of currency, and saying that all the things available to exchange with it are worth some arbitrary large number of these units. You can change value, increase it or decrease it, by changing abundance and want. If a thing becomes more common, or people want it less, people will be less willing to exchange much to get hold of it - it gets cheaper. If a thing becomes less common, or people want it more, they'll be willing to part with and hand over much more to have it for themselves - it gets more expensive. So you makes things cheaper or costlier by increasing or decreasing the amount available - or by influencing how people feel about it. The advertising industry, for example, exists nowadays entirely to influence how much we want something, using psychological tricks and techniques to make us think we want what someone is selling. Convince someone think a thing will improve their life, or is rare, and people will want it more than they would otherwise. Tell someone something is actually of low quality, or very common, or will reflect badly on them, and they'll tend to want it less. If they want it less, they'll exchange less for it - and so the price is lowered.

Only for envious people.

I agree in the intention but I don't think that the solution lies in technology. In the present many countries already the technical capability (e.g. there are more houses than homeless, programmed obsolescence and artificial scarcity is a common practice) to cover the basic needs of their citizens but don't do it because it is not beneficial to the state and the owners of most of the wealth and means of production. I'll try to explain this next. (An example of this is written in 1984) Imagine that everyone have it's basic goods covered ¿Who would be a janitor or why would anyone want to work? Your system would collapse. Therefore our current economic system requires poverty and inequality. Also a technological development would increase the material wealth available but it doesn't automatically transition to an equal distribution of that wealth, instead it usually creates unemployment. (I have heard that this causes the emergence of other industries which covers that lack of jobs, but there is always an excess of workers (otherwise wages would be too high) and that makes me doubt that the absolute quantity of unemployed people would diminish). I agree that a more equitable society would be desirable even your first statement that money is an arbitrary thing that exists by pure pragmatism. However I don't think that the society you talk about will be achieved with machines but with politics (for lack of a better word). P.D. If u don't think that machines will make the societal change by themselves I apologise but I just wanted to give my opinion on the matter. Some empiric things I said aren't cited. If you need the citation I will send them but I couldn't in the moment I wrote this. Have a good day.

Also I know that the stablishment of that kind of programs wouldn't be profitable but the societal and moral good it has would outweigh it's cost (such as the police, basic infrastructure, etc).

Wew nice write but , i still dont know much about it

I believe money should be grounded in something concrete, and therefore ought to be based on energy. Not an energetic process, or an energy source, but energy itself - kilojoules, say. One could exchange currency that is backed by the total kilojoules available to be utilised in civilisation, not only in generating capacity of power plants or whatever, but also in the 'embodied energy' of goods and available labour power measured in kilojoules of the labour force; and thus, since literally everything has an objective amount of energy needed to produce or preserve or provide it, you will have exchanged a true, objective measured fraction of the total goods and services, the total value, available. All that would be required would be a periodic stocktaking of that energy available.