Intrinsic Value
November 30th, 2006 | by Chris Gidman |…Taking Todd up on his request.
It occurred to me the other morning that nothing has any value except that which an individual gives it. To some, this probably seems simplistic. For me, it was a minor revelation—perhaps even an epiphany. It was, in some sense, a recognition of perception in an area that I thought was almost completely objective.
The invisible hand that guides the market place cannot be denied. If a government fiddles with supply then price changes and demand changes. If a consortium fiddles with a price, then demand changes and supply suffers either glut or scarcity. Based on the truth of this, I somehow assumed that a thing has a certain intrinsic value. I now believe this to be untrue.
Here are the examples with which I played:
Gold has a market price. That is essentially an average measure of the value placed on it by the people who are willing to buy it. For me, gold is virtually worthless. I buy some now and again as a trinket for my wife. But, it’s not the gold that’s worth something. It’s shaped and beset with stones and I may like this one or that one depending on its appeal to me when I see it. But a hunk of gold? What do I want it for? It is a gambling token. It might go up in market value. It might go down. I would only hold it for that reason. I can’t eat it. I can’t smoke it. I can’t bathe with it. For me personally, it is an expensive paperweight. I get more value out of a good pizza.
An episode of Cheers once revealed that Sam carried around a squashed bottle cap. The cap was a talisman of sorts that had helped him through tough times while recovering from alcohol addiction. He describes nights he spent squeezing the cap, trying to avoid grabbing for the booze. I seem to remember him talking about blood, sweating, and tears. I can’t imagine what some alcoholics must go through to beat the addiction. At any rate, the bottle cap is simply an old mashed cap. You might find it’s identical twin in the parking lot of the local 7-11. But the two caps have very different values. Sam’s is worth more to him than he can imagine. He spent long nights putting the value into it. (Even this phrase is a misnomer. He put no value into it. Rather, he developed a relationship with it.) The one found at the convenience store is trash. To anyone else, both bottlecaps are worthless. Sam can attempt to reveal the value of his by telling his story. But, even then, the value they place on the cap depends on the value they place on Sam.
What is breathable air worth? What is drinking water worth? Our very lives depend upon it. Its abundance has made it nearly worthless. Does it have some objective or intrinsic value? No, not really. It only has the value that we as people place on it.
I suppose, in the end, “value” must have two parts. It must have a “thing” and it must have a “recipient”. Nothing has value in and of itself. Can this thinking be applied to people? Do I have some intrinsic value? What does that even mean? Certainly, I have value as an income provider to my family. I hold some value for my employer. I may be valued by my colleagues. I have value for Todd in that I converse with him about interesting topics and I blog on his site when he slumps. But do I have intrinsic value?
Given my argument above, I guess I don’t.
This has been your Depressing Thought for the Day.
4 Responses to “Intrinsic Value”
By Chris Gidman on Nov 30, 2006 | Reply
Some comment to the contrary that I found elsewhere:
After abusing a 500 rupee note, the Indian speaker asked if anybody wanted it…
But, the fact is that there is no intrinsic value in that note at all. The paper is nearly worthless—it’s been used. The note is merely the representation of a promise. Only the audience’s belief in the promise gives the note value.
Furthermore, if only one person believed the promise, the note would still be worthless. The value of the note derives from its utility as a tool of exchange within the community. It comes from faith based on the confidence placed in the government behind it. That confidence is based on the belief that the government will continue to behave as it has been behaving and that it will be there tomorrow.
The stability of the government is largely based on the people who are governed. (Their ability to produce, their willingness to be governed, and their ability to defend their territory against invaders.) So, ultimately, it comes down to faith in the community’s ability to remain a community.
So now that I think about it, our whole economic structure is built on little more than trust in humans to remain self-confident. Seems like a pretty unstable way to live.
By Mark Wiley on Nov 30, 2006 | Reply
One thing that my latest project (new small business owner) has taught me is the value of an object’s “perceived” value. As we try to determine our price model we find it is less an idea of product costs+labor+markup = price as it is perceived value = price. We are conditioned to pay 20 bucks for a hat. We are conditioned to pay 20 bucks for a shirt. Now add a certain logo (nike, reebok, etc.) and the value goes up. Same shirt, different logo. Go figure.
This is why the best segment to be in is catering to the wealthy. So called Luxury Items. You tell them this shirt costs 60 bucks, and they overlay their own sense of quality.
By Chris Gidman on Dec 1, 2006 | Reply
I guess my point is that all value is perceived. Maybe it’s too much of an ontological point, but I feel certain that it is practical as well.
We speak of things having “sentimental value”. Some of us keep old letters, christmas cards, pictures, etc. They’re almost worthless to anyone else. These things only have sentimental, or emotional value. But all value is colored by emotion. The value of the Nike logo holds some sentiment for the buyer, probably more than the shirt itself. I have an emotional attachment to living, so air, water, and food have value to me.
If it weren’t for our emotional desire to live, where would be the value of these necessities? Luxury items are interesting. For the irresponsibly wealthy, the emotional value of having paid three times more than the poor schmuck at Wal-Mart is value enough. (Nothing against Wal-Mart or those who shop there, I go there myself at times.) They aren’t really overlaying quality so much as they are attaching their own value to the item. (Unless quality = value in this case.)
Mark, I’m agreeing with you and broadening it a little. I suppose I’m digging for a foundation again. Only, I’m not finding it. I’ve been tossing around the whole indvidualism thing again because of a recent teaching I heard. In Ayn Rand’s Fountainhead, Howard Roarke is painted as being the be-all end-all of mankind. He has an innate, inherent, or intrinsic value all to himself. Yet, there is the scene where he slumps at his desk waiting for the phone to ring. Without others, he is pretty much worthless.
I really don’t like where this line of reasoning has taken me—not at all. I was kind of hoping that Todd would jump in and rescue me. Maybe he will on Saturday.
The real question seems to be, “Without community, who are we?” I don’t like the answer, which seems to be, “Nobody.”
By C on Dec 13, 2006 | Reply
Perhaps we are merely evolved primates whose function is to spread our essences - be those biological, ideological, or cultural? The real question is why is that explanation not enough? Why is it that some want there to be meaning to life while others are happy with an opiate to excite the neurons?
It might be that this is biological determinism at work. Some people are wired in a way in which the normal joys of life are not as fulfilling to them as on average. They might just be congenitally disatisfied. On a side-note, it is frightening to think on how much of our beings are created by genetics. Much of our temperament is genetic, our appearance is, as well as our maximum capacities for mental and physical labour.
Chris, your conception of value could otherwise be termed utility. If a thing has no utility to me or potential for utility in satisfying my wants, then it is of no interest. The danger with such a silopsistic perspective is that it can devalue others and lead to abuse.
As to your fear of community being the source of all identity or value - Is this so bad? We are all linked with other people. Our realtive values exist in a sea of others. It is inevitable that people will congregate into families, tribes, villages, states, etc. Also that those groups would place value on common commodities. Through evolution or design we have been born into needing the hierarchy and the group.
The key point to mind so as to avoid depression is that the value of the individual while collectively, objectively, subjectively, and individually judged is still in the provenance of that individual to own. When one stops owning one’s own worth and starts owning the worth of others you get socialism.