Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: grusum who wrote (8144)	2/4/2012 7:26:22 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

no, value is objective. it must be useful in some way to have value. Makes you feel better... makes your space more attractive... etc. all are useful, but subjective. Also what's useful, even outside of esthetic concerns is also largely subjective. For example, one person might think a very large house is great, for another its just more space to clean and maintain. Enough people care about the extra space to make larger houses more valuable, but if those desires change, the large houses would be white elephants (except to the extent they could be transformed until multi-unit residence at a reasonable cost). Its the same with more powerful cars, or extremely green and lush grass, etc. They have value to people, and to the extent they have economic value, to the extent someone will pay for them, the represent wealth. if everyone were poor, the useful things would be the only ones of value. Only for such a wide definition of useful, that it would include things with emotional or esthetic value. Poor people will pay more for better looking items, or items that make them feel good. Even people in extreme poverty care about items of emotional and/or esthetic value, and will pay money (or barter, or do work in trade for, or work to create) them.