Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumas
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.
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.
|
I was trying to separate the monetary cost of the item from how much it is valued by someone. Another way to divide the two words is internal and external. How much you value something is a process that occurs inside your own had (internal). Deciding the cost occurs between two or more people (external).
It just occurred to me that there at least two ways to use the word value. I am using it in the way that Heinlein used it in
Starship Troopers. The other way to use it is the phrase "monetary value".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumas
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.
|
We seem to have reached a similar conclusion, though.