There is no diamond-water paradox. It is a floating abstract that it ignores who is doing the valuing and their circumstances. Water is not more valuable if there if I have plenty of water (food and many other things). Any rational person show was dying of thirst would value the water more. This sort of economic thinking occurs because economists do not look at the nature of man and why he engages in economic activities.

What you are ignoring or evading is that values are based in reality. Under the Austrian formulation it is valuing that is not based in reality.

"The reality is that the value of any item is only determined by the individual who desires it" if by desire you mean that this desire is based in reality. But that is not what Von Mises says.

Haha yeah. I guess I have to deal with a lot of that regardless. At least the bullshit on the farm is a little more useful. haha

"A value is a value for someone given there evaluation of reality." Db, how about you explain that a little further.

Yes, and I am a farmer so I value a plow much more than you Db. We all have different value scales and we value things differently.(subjective) As to your comment about engaging in a economy because it's a fun game. What a silly argument. I engage in the economy so I can trade with someone and obtain a good of more value and get rid of my good that I perceive has less value. So what I am saying is... I engage in the economy so I can make myself better off! I really don't understand why this is so difficult to get across.

As usual you did not read. I am not arguing for intrinsic value, that would make no sense. A value is a value for someone given there evaluation of reality. That is an objective value.

Exactly right Robbie. Austrians are the ones who solved the diamond-water paradox as your example explains.

Is the acquisition of food subjective? How about water? How about a plow for a farmer? The subjective theory is nonsense. Why do you engage in the economy? Because it is a fun game?

Values are internal to the individual. And I guess we will have to agree to disagree because IMO value is indeed subjective.

No value is not subjective and it is not intrinsic. Things have value in relation to someone's position, but it is not subjective. And the Von Mises position is that values do not exist in economics, they are not just saying that it is a person's evaluation. They are saying it is totally disconnected from reality.

Rand has a full discussion of Intrinsic value (classical economists), subjective value (Von Mises and most modern economist), and objective value in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, starting on page 13. The subjective theory of value holds that the value (price) has no relation to reality and this is the Von Mises position. The objective theory holds that the value is based on a persons evaluation of the facts of reality.

Value is subjective. After eating 5 pieces of pizza, I value the next slice less than the first slice of pizza I had. I really don't get what's so hard to understand about value being subjective. And when value is subjective that means value is judged by the "individual." An individual engaging in "voluntary" exchange. There is no force in that. And economic choices are made by the individual. So it's not some irrational game.

Look I'm pointing out having perfect knowledge is impossible and no matter how much reason you think you have you still don't know everything. And by the way, people can get the same facts about something and still respond and act differently based on those facts. And yes I do believe in making the moral case for capitalism and the free market and that's exactly what I do on my podcast. (Justin Mohr Show) If you haven't checked it out may I recommend it to you. I believe when I present different topics on the show I attempt to get people to think differently then they currently do. If they agree with me that's great and if they don't I hope at least my show challenges them enough to recheck their premise. I think that's a good way to persuade people and on my show I don't try to force people to think like me. I think that's a turn off and I think it's more powerful for people to discover the truth for themselves. And for you to think the way I make the moral case for capitalism is collectivist you are sadely mistaken. And if you attack people who almost agree with you most of the time, how in the hell are you every going to convince people to come to your side? With all due respect Kh, I think my way has a lot better chance at bringing more capitalist and more libertarians to our side. I don't need someone to agree with me 100% of the time for me to respect them. I believe my previous comments on this thread have already shown that.

I do not know Von Mises' ideas on property, but he held that economic values are subjective and therefore prices are subjective and we can make no statements about economic choices. This divorces economics from reality and turns it into some sort of bizarre (irrational) game. In a battle between any two irrational groups it will always be the one most willing to use force that will win, which is why the socialists are winning.

I go to work and engage in the economy because life requires that I do so.

Hello dbhalling,
Thank you for your analysis. It would seem that Hayek was not consistent in all of his writings. I quite agree with your opinion regarding patents and property rights. If the Austrians are not fully behind these I must reexamine my hierarchy. I believe it is apparent from my previous discourse that I find the most pernicious, contemporary enemy the Keynesians. Thus, I have been of the opinion that Keynes was my enemy, Hayek an ally and Rand my mentor. In this regard I feel as if the enemy of my enemy is my friend... at least as a temporary tactic and strategy towards free markets. I will now take your analysis under consideration and do a little more research. My Hayek exposure, as I stated, was limited. Now I am interested in the differences between Hayek and Mises since Rand did show some appreciation for Mises. The Austrian School having many adherents gives me pause to consider if they all have similar positions regarding patents and property.

I have investigated many economists and gleaned from each those thoughts which were appealing and sound. Ultimately finding less to quibble over with Rand than any other. That is a large part of why I am here.

Thank you again for your input... Food for thought.
Regards,
O.A.

no-those were YOUR words I'm disagreeing with and calling collectivist. and blatantly untrue.

Down vote across the board for either ignorance or purposely spreading lies.

Robbie your ignorance is legendary. "that propagates a system that limits availability of knowledge to the few." Patents actually disseminate knowledge what they do limit is the ability of second handers,like you, to profit off of other peoples work. Just once it would be nice if you actually learned something before you open your mouth..

you are making a collectivist argument