What would Jesus buy?

[UnidentifiedFlyingTard]

Jesus would probably get a nice toolbox for his hammers and shit.

 

[Ozrat]

Would you argue that sharing a meal with someone has no actual value if the meal is made from scratch with homegrown ingredients? If not, then please explain yourself better than this.

No, I'd argue that the actual value (in the sense that Kahgan was talking, ie economic value) is whatever the market price for that meal would be. In this case the market consists of one person, so the value would be however much that one person would want to pay for that meal.

The meal would be providing you with healthy nourishment combined with social enjoyment, two values that are deemed essential to cultures everywhere (three if it takes place within a sheltered location). Yes, I suppose if you wanted to purchase an equivalent meal at a farm-fresh organic restaurant (probably will cost more than eating at an average diner), but how exactly does that relate to this topic? Your argument is invalid because you do not pay someone for giving you a meal as a gift. This thread is based on what the value of a gift is, not the value of a commodity or a luxury. Please stop being a scrooge and stay on topic. What would you personally value as a gift? What gifts have you given that you knew would be valued by others?

Jesus would probably get a nice toolbox for his hammers and shit.

That would be a thoughtful gift.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Jesus is a Q from the continuum.

He would buy himself, since he is so sexy.

Who wouldn't want a Q for Christmas?

 

[jero cvmi]

Jesus would probably get a nice toolbox for his hammers and shit.

Very useful if you want to, say, pull nails out of, say, a wooden cross

I care about price of gifts only when i exchange gifts with people i'm not very familiar with, and don't know what they'll actually enjoy. so even if they don't like it, they can at least go to the store with the change ticket and buy something else. and at some occasions i just want to pretend i'm large.

With closer friends, a cheap gift or even a makeshift one that i know they will enjoy can be a very good choice, because i'm doing it to make someone happy, not because of some social obligation that has to follow the social protocol in terms of defining what's valuable. Which is, how much it costs.

In Scientificz wordz, Value of exchange != Value in use


edit: homemade booze is a common gift i get from friends. good stuff.

 

[Sander]

The meal would be providing you with healthy nourishment combined with social enjoyment, two values that are deemed essential to cultures everywhere (three if it takes place within a sheltered location). Yes, I suppose if you wanted to purchase an equivalent meal at a farm-fresh organic restaurant (probably will cost more than eating at an average diner), but how exactly does that relate to this topic? Your argument is invalid because you do not pay someone for giving you a meal as a gift. This thread is based on what the value of a gift is, not the value of a commodity or a luxury. Please stop being a scrooge and stay on topic. What would you personally value as a gift? What gifts have you given that you knew would be valued by others?

I separated economic value and emotional value. Emotional value is hard or impossible to quantify, economic value isn't. I don't see why you can't do the same.

 

[alec]

I regularly check the scrapbook and papercraft blogs of a couple of MILFS and this thing caught my eye:

how about you start making nice gift boxes for all the gifts you're about to give?

It's dead easy: all you need is some (square) paper and all you need to do is fold (a lot) and cut (4 times). Check out the vid:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBf957XC-4k[/youtube]

I've already made 4 boxes (base + lid) out of big and small paper sizes and they're awesome for little gifts like jewelry or perfume and stuff.

Just thought I'd let you know...

 

[Ozrat]

I separated economic value and emotional value. Emotional value is hard or impossible to quantify, economic value isn't. I don't see why you can't do the same.

Easily; economic value is a quantity defined by human judgement, some have more personal judgement than others. Until human judgement is entirely free of emotions they are impossible to segregate. You have been ignoring the topic of this thread and questions that I have been asking you, please stay on topic or start another thread.

Nice alec. Here are some more homemade gift ideas:
http://notmadeofmoney.com/blog/2006/11/50-homemade-gift-ideas-from-around-the-web.html
http://www.instructables.com/id/Homemade-Gifts/
http://www.allfreecrafts.com/homemade-gifts/index.shtml

 

[Sander]

Easily; economic value is a quantity defined by human judgement, some have more personal judgement than others. Until human judgement is entirely free of emotions they are impossible to segregate.

No. Emotional value is a personal matter that differs greatly from person to person. Economic value doesn't change: a bottle of coke isn't more valuable economically for me than it is for my neighbour, regardless of emotional investment.

The fact that something is gifted to you doesn't change its economic value.

Also what I'd like? I have no idea. Money, so I can go buy stuff I need but that is too expensive for people to give me outright.

 

[jero cvmi]

I'd argue that the actual value (in the sense that Kahgan was talking, ie economic value) is whatever the market price for that meal would be. In this case the market consists of one person, so the value would be however much that one person would want to pay for that meal.

Economic value doesn't change: a bottle of coke isn't more valuable economically for me than it is for my neighbour, regardless of emotional investment.

contradictions, contradictions...

Again: Ozrat and the others are talking about use values, you're talking about exchange values, no wonder we can't communicate.

Money for a christmas gift? That sounds like what a distant relative who hasn't seen you in 20 years would give. But it's better than nothing, i guess.

 

[Sander]

I'd argue that the actual value (in the sense that Kahgan was talking, ie economic value) is whatever the market price for that meal would be. In this case the market consists of one person, so the value would be however much that one person would want to pay for that meal.

Economic value doesn't change: a bottle of coke isn't more valuable economically for me than it is for my neighbour, regardless of emotional investment.

contradictions, contradictions...

No. Both are market prices. As I said, in one case the market is exactly one person, though that's probably poorly described. In the other example the market is wider. This is not a contradiction at all.

Again: market value is determined by the amount of money people want to pay for products, but much more by simple competitiveness and that is devoid of emotional value. People may want to pay $10 for a bottle of coke, but when a competitor offers the same product for $9 they're not going to spend $10. That's why market value differs from emotional value, and it's also the reason for my original inquiry: how are you defining the so-called "actual value" everyone has supposedly lost track of, if not through market forces, and why would this be useful?

No one has managed to convincingly answer those questions.

Again: Ozrat and the others are talking about use values, you're talking about exchange values, no wonder we can't communicate.

Again: I have yet to see a valid argument as to why the market value would differ from the actual value of a product, or how you'd even define the latter.

"I'd pay XXXX for that item at most" would seem like a good measure of emotional value.

Money for a christmas gift? That sounds like what a distant relative who hasn't seen you in 20 years would give. But it's better than nothing, i guess.

I have basically everything I could possibly realistically ask for as a christmas gift. So people can surprise with fun gifts and I may or may not appreciate them as gifts, though I'll always appreciate the gesture. Just sayin', right now the most valuable gift for me would probably just be money.

 

[jero cvmi]

Again: I have yet to see a valid argument as to why the market value would differ from the actual value of a product, or how you'd even define the latter.

because you didn't follow the wikipedia links i gave.

"I'd pay XXXX for that item at most" would seem like a good measure of emotional value.

maybe of emotional value, mabe of use value. Again, how valuable an item is to you, even without any emotional factor, strictly materialistically speaking, as in- how much you need it, may differ from how much you have to pay for it.

An example concerning the topic of christmas gifts.

Sander really really needs a new crowbar, to moderate forums and whatnot. but he has absolutely no need for a new toaster.

Ozrat who is his dear friend and knows what he needs, buys him a brand new 10 euro crowbar.

Jero who is a remote acquaintance but wants to make an impression, buys sander a 100 euro toaster.

If there is no chance for a refund in either, which gift would sander appreciate the most?

 

[Wooz]

The toaster, because he's a capitalist dutch swine.

 

[Sander]

maybe of emotional value, mabe of use value. Again, how valuable an item is to you, even without any emotional factor, strictly materialistically speaking, as in- how much you need it, may differ from how much you have to pay for it.

Yes. Again, I acknowledge that what someone may be willing to pay for something is different from the market value of that item.

As for use value, I don't see how that is the point. Use value, for as far as I know, is the value of something when used, in other words how much it produces. This was not what we were talking about originally - it wasn't 'people don't know how much a knife is worth to society', Kahgan meant it in a way of 'people don't know how much effort went into producing it'.

I'd accept the idea that use value is a different way of defining value of an item, although I don't think use-value and market-value(or exchange-value) would be different in a perfect market, I might be wrong about that. Of course, there are no real perfect markets.

An example concerning the topic of christmas gifts.

Sander really really needs a new crowbar, to moderate forums and whatnot. but he has absolutely no need for a new toaster.

Ozrat who is his dear friend and knows what he needs, buys him a brand new 10 euro crowbar.

Jero who is a remote acquaintance but wants to make an impression, buys sander a 100 euro toaster.

If there is no chance for a refund in either, which gift would sander appreciate the most?

Examples divorced from reality have no place in a discussion about economics. Economics is first and foremost an applied theory, not a theoretical curiosity.
By which I mean: the premise that you can't sell on gifts or get refunds for them is ludicrous.

 

[jero cvmi]

as far as I know, is the value of something when used, in other words how much it produces.

No, things do not produce. Humans produce. Use value is an abstract measure of usefulness to humans, in production or pleasure or any other activity in life.

Kahgan meant it in a way of 'people don't know how much effort went into producing it'.

I'm not sure what Kahgan was talking about, but if he did mean that then he was pretty accurate. Pricing can only be a hint on the effort spent in creating an item. But pricing also includes other factors such as profit, scarcity, marketing policy, labour policy, etc.

Although how much effort was spent in producing an item is a well established definition of value, I don't decide what gifts to buy according to that value, either, because i can never accurately know it. I prefer to judge by usefulness, you prefer to judge by pricing, there's no right and wrong to it, it's just different ways of judgement.

Examples divorced from reality have no place in a discussion about economics. Economics is first and foremost an applied theory, not a theoretical curiosity.

sais the person who invented one man markets?

 

[Sander]

No, things do not produce. Humans produce. Use value is an abstract measure of usefulness to humans, in production or pleasure or any other activity in life.

Yes, that's what I meant.

I'm not sure what Kahgan was talking about, but if he did mean that then he was pretty accurate. Pricing can only be a hint on the effort spent in creating an item. But pricing also includes other factors such as profit, scarcity, marketing policy, labour policy, etc.

Although how much effort was spent in producing an item is a well established definition of value, I don't decide what gifts to buy according to that value, either, because i can never accurately know it. I prefer to judge by usefulness, you prefer to judge by pricing, there's no right and wrong to it, it's just different ways of judgement.

Marxist theory isn't the end-all be-all of economic theory, and there's a very clear flaw with defining value as the effort that went into creating the product: I could spend ten years on a painting, and it would still be worth shit-all since I suck at painting.

sais the person who invented one man markets?

Yeah, calling it a one-man market was silly and I have no clue why I did that. My point was that a gift's emotional value is separate from its economic value.

 

[Zeal]

"jesus is a HELL of an activist!"

 

[Ozrat]

Emotional value is a personal matter that differs greatly from person to person. Economic value doesn't change: a bottle of coke isn't more valuable economically for me than it is for my neighbour, regardless of emotional investment.

- If you purchased a coke from a vending machine at a slightly higher cost than what your neighbor pays for a coke at a store, isn't one bottle more economically valuable than the other?
- What if you purchased a coke from a store that your neighbor owns, wouldn't he be paying wholesale price for a coke and earning a profit because you are paying him retail price for a coke?
- What if you purchased a coke and your neighbor works for the coke corporation, wouldn't he be able to purchase a coke with an employee discount and also be earning an income from your consumption of a coke (even if it was gifted to you)?
- What if your neighbor purchased a coke in India?

The fact that something is gifted to you doesn't change its economic value.

What if your neighbor gifted you the key to his coke vending machine, wouldn't the access to free coke be more economically valuable than the actual key itself?

Also what I'd like? I have no idea. Money, so I can go buy stuff I need but that is too expensive for people to give me outright.

Scrooge. Alright, if you are planning to give anyone a gift, what would it be?

 

[Sander]

- If you purchased a coke from a vending machine at a slightly higher cost than what your neighbor pays for a coke at a store, isn't one bottle more economically valuable than the other?
- What if you purchased a coke from a store that your neighbor owns, wouldn't he be paying wholesale price for a coke and earning a profit because you are paying him retail price for a coke?
- What if you purchased a coke and your neighbor works for the coke corporation, wouldn't he be able to purchase a coke with an employee discount and also be earning an income from your consumption of a coke (even if it was gifted to you)?
- What if your neighbor purchased a coke in India?

Yes, in different markets items hold different values.

What if your neighbor gifted you the key to his coke vending machine, wouldn't the access to free coke be more economically valuable than the actual key itself?

Yes. Because, y'know, he's actually giving you free coke, not just a key. Similarly, if that were done in an open market, the value of coke itself would suddenly plummet.

Scrooge. Alright, if you are planning to give anyone a gift, what would it be?

I'd go into town look around and buy something I'd think they'd enjoy or find useful.

 

[jero cvmi]

Marxist theory isn't the end-all be-all of economic theory, and there's a very clear flaw with defining value as the effort that went into creating the product: I could spend ten years on a painting, and it would still be worth shit-all since I suck at painting.

It also takes great effort to learn how to paint, to teach one how to paint, and to craft all the necessary materials, so yeah, if you tried to do that all by yourself in ten years, according to marxian economics your painting would probably suck.

Thankfully works of art can also have a great deal of emotional value, and i think a self-made drawing, a sculpture or a poem may be a good idea for a special personal gift, if someone has a little skill. Some very beloved gifts i have received are amateur paintings.

 

[Ozrat]

Economic value doesn't change: a bottle of coke isn't more valuable economically for me than it is for my neighbour
...
The fact that something is gifted to you doesn't change its economic value.

Yes, in different markets items hold different values.
...
Yes. Because, y'know, he's actually giving you free coke, not just a key. Similarly, if that were done in an open market, the value of coke itself would suddenly plummet.

Interesting.