Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate the great
Ponder this: Who would place a higher value on a glass of water: someone in a rainstorm or someone in a desert?
|
In this instance you have used the definition for value in a monetary sense. Scarcity dictates a person would place a higher value (pay more) for water in a desert. Abundance dictates you will not likely find a person willing to pay anything for water in a rainstorm where water is essentially unlimited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate the great
The point I am trying to make is that value is relative.
|
Following your first example, I think you are saying that "value" (cost) is relative to an item's scarcity/abundance. If so, that would be consistent economically speaking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate the great
Two individuals might pay the same cost for something, but might place a different value on it.
|
Having paid the same amount for an item and therefore indicating its level of abundance/scarcity to be static at a particular point in time, that item's sense of worth, utility, or importance could be different to those two people. That is consistent with what I have termed the philosophical definition of value.