![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please be aware that (some) intrinsic theories of value do explain the diamond-water paradox. For instance, according to the labor theory of value, diamonds are worth more than water because the labor necessary to produce a finished diamond is far greater than the labor necessary to get water. -- Nikodemos 00:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it does not explain why big diamonds, which take less work to dig up, are more valuable than small diamonds, which take more work. -- Dullfig 00:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
There is an article explaining all this, Paradox of value Dullfig 00:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Incidentaly, if you read the page on Paradox of value, you will see that, for example, if a man is dying of thirst in the desert, and he has a bag of diamonds, he very well may find a glass of water worth more than the entire bag of diamonds. All of a sudden it matters very little how much work it took to mine those diamonds. That is because water is the only thing with the property "kills thirst". Within the context at the time, the man made a value judgment based on the properties of the objects at hand, and his own needs. -- Dullfig 02:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
By all means! I had not noticed that the title has a typo, and therefore is a duplicate of an existing article. I would say it needs merging. Dullfig 07:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with the merger proposal. They are totally unrelated subjects, even if they are called similarly. Here we are talking about a general theory of value of everything, the finance article deals in commodities. Unrelated. Dullfig 16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Some pages where the relevant concept 'intrinsic value' or 'fundamental value' of a financial asset (present value of its expected income stream) instead link to this page. We should make clear that this page does NOT deal with that concept. I will add some text at the top to help users find the finance page. But I'm not really sure how to describe what THIS page is. I will say it has something to do with the philosophy of value, but if someone else can be clearer that would be great. -- Rinconsoleao ( talk) 10:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing the comment about 'value investors', since that is related to the financial topic, not the philosophical topic. -- Rinconsoleao ( talk) 10:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
as no one seems to support this proposition (see: Theory of value (economics)), I removed it. Dick Bos ( talk) 16:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please be aware that (some) intrinsic theories of value do explain the diamond-water paradox. For instance, according to the labor theory of value, diamonds are worth more than water because the labor necessary to produce a finished diamond is far greater than the labor necessary to get water. -- Nikodemos 00:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it does not explain why big diamonds, which take less work to dig up, are more valuable than small diamonds, which take more work. -- Dullfig 00:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
There is an article explaining all this, Paradox of value Dullfig 00:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Incidentaly, if you read the page on Paradox of value, you will see that, for example, if a man is dying of thirst in the desert, and he has a bag of diamonds, he very well may find a glass of water worth more than the entire bag of diamonds. All of a sudden it matters very little how much work it took to mine those diamonds. That is because water is the only thing with the property "kills thirst". Within the context at the time, the man made a value judgment based on the properties of the objects at hand, and his own needs. -- Dullfig 02:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
By all means! I had not noticed that the title has a typo, and therefore is a duplicate of an existing article. I would say it needs merging. Dullfig 07:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with the merger proposal. They are totally unrelated subjects, even if they are called similarly. Here we are talking about a general theory of value of everything, the finance article deals in commodities. Unrelated. Dullfig 16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Some pages where the relevant concept 'intrinsic value' or 'fundamental value' of a financial asset (present value of its expected income stream) instead link to this page. We should make clear that this page does NOT deal with that concept. I will add some text at the top to help users find the finance page. But I'm not really sure how to describe what THIS page is. I will say it has something to do with the philosophy of value, but if someone else can be clearer that would be great. -- Rinconsoleao ( talk) 10:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing the comment about 'value investors', since that is related to the financial topic, not the philosophical topic. -- Rinconsoleao ( talk) 10:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
as no one seems to support this proposition (see: Theory of value (economics)), I removed it. Dick Bos ( talk) 16:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)