I think that all so-called economists should be forced to try to run a retail business and make a profit. All of their ideas and propositions will quickly show themselves as to being workable and non-workable. Many years ago, Eastman Kodak put out a course and guide book called "Pathways to Profit." In it they covered overhead, purchasing, selling, stocking, store appearance, employees and taxes. Today it would be somewhat obsolete because of the myriad of regulations and taxes that didn't exist back then.,

As I read about Menger, my mind rates what he says. the ratings are: Obvious, Good, Stupid, Stupider. Not one new idea that would aid a businessman.The only reason that Austrian Economics, or Objectivist Economics, or Free Market Economics exists is because the sheer unworkability of socialist economics.

Here are some questions that I shall have to think about for a time to attempt to formulate answers, but perhaps you'd like to take a swing.
How are values determined in a free market? Who determines value? Can values that fluctuate constantly, like financial instrument values, be said in any sense to be objective when that fluctuation would appear to be the result of constantly changing subjective emotions? Are such values collective "evaluations of the facts of reality by man's consciousness according to a rational standard of value?" If the answer is yes, having spent my life in financial markets, I would have to see very strong supporting evidence and arguments to invalidate my suspicion that the answer is no. Or is value in markets a separate, but perhaps related concept, to the value cited in the Rand quote? I'm sure I'll have more questions--to me it's a fascinating subject--but this is a start. Perhaps one day I'll write something on it, but it will require a great deal of thought and research before I do.

Can't disagree with any of that...I mostly learned the objective/intrinsic.
Aristotle thought that if it exists and it's useful then it is good. Being is the same as good, if I remember correctly.

Thank you for the clarification. "Discovery" is the direction I think I was headed toward. I will wrestle with the difference between intrinsic and objective for a while, but I appreciate the guidance.

See the quote above by Rand.

There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of “good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of “value” from valuer and purpose—claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself.

The subjectivist theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of a man’s consciousness, created by his feelings, desires, “intuitions,” or whims, and that it is merely an “arbitrary postulate” or an “emotional commitment.”

The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man’s consciousness; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man’s consciousness, independent of reality.

The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit context-dropping or “concept-stealing”; it does not permit the separation of “value” from “purpose,” of the good from beneficiaries, and of man’s actions from reason.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal “What Is Capitalism?”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 21

Is value a set natural phenomenon that the free market attempts to match? Is a smoothly running economy one that comes closest to matching the inherent value?

In my opinion the reason he flips between the two positions is that is how value is perceived from each side.

The objective value is equivalent to cost from the perspective of the seller. Value would include a profit for the seller, else no point in business.

The subjective value is what a buyer will pay. This can vary wildly between different buyers.

In the western world (with few exceptions) we use an objective value for both sides of the transaction, there is no variance or negotiation.This is assumed as the norm in western culture.

In other cultures, haggling is the norm, so value gets very subjective quickly. And is expected as such on both sides of the transaction

In the US for instance, the only purchases where negotiation over price/value is the norm are certain big ticket items like cars and homes, or volume purchases by contract. Everything else is price as marked in our culture.

Which can result in some interesting exchanges with people from other cultures who expect price haggling as the norm.