WEBVTT

NOTE Putting the Pieces Together

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.000
Value. What it is and how it works.

2
00:00:08.000 --> 00:00:15.000
Value is an extremely important concept in all human behavior.

3
00:00:15.000 --> 00:00:23.000
Human beings are, in a sense, value-oriented. We are really profit-oriented.

4
00:00:23.000 --> 00:00:31.000
We all of us act in an effort to gain something or to prevent the loss of something that we value.

5
00:00:31.000 --> 00:00:40.000
Now, value is a very, very sophisticated idea, and I've got to deal with it here at some length

6
00:00:40.000 --> 00:00:47.000
in order that we do understand it and understand the very significant part it plays in our lives.

7
00:00:47.000 --> 00:00:55.280
When we talk in terms of a marketplace and how things work in a market, there's a tendency

8
00:00:55.280 --> 00:01:04.720
for people to suppose that goods and services operate almost on their own volition. In fact,

9
00:01:04.720 --> 00:01:12.640
I have read some relatively supposedly scientific treatises to that effect, that there are natural

10
00:01:12.640 --> 00:01:18.000
and the laws that govern the flow of goods and services in the market.

11
00:01:18.000 --> 00:01:21.760
In point of fact, what we have is this.

12
00:01:21.760 --> 00:01:27.420
Goods and services move in the market only because of one thing.

13
00:01:27.420 --> 00:01:30.740
That one thing is human decision.

14
00:01:30.740 --> 00:01:34.560
Goods and services don't make up their own minds and they don't move by themselves.

15
00:01:34.560 --> 00:01:36.080
People move them.

16
00:01:36.080 --> 00:01:39.400
And people move them in terms of how they value them.

17
00:01:39.400 --> 00:01:47.680
And characteristically, what we have in scarce supply, we value highly. And what we have

18
00:01:47.680 --> 00:01:57.640
in abundance, we value less highly. So value is the little trigger mechanism that causes

19
00:01:57.640 --> 00:02:06.160
us to act. When we see something that we want, we value it more and more until we get it.

20
00:02:06.160 --> 00:02:11.520
And then after we've got it, sometimes we tend to devalue it until we get rid of it.

21
00:02:11.520 --> 00:02:17.000
So this is what causes goods and services to move.

22
00:02:17.000 --> 00:02:22.720
Now in the early days when people first approached this idea of value and tried to deal with

23
00:02:22.720 --> 00:02:28.720
it, they were aware that there were a number of factors in the market and they were bringing

24
00:02:28.720 --> 00:02:31.560
the best judgment they had to bear on the subject.

25
00:02:31.560 --> 00:02:36.200
They realize, for instance, that there is such a thing as cost, and there is such a

26
00:02:36.200 --> 00:02:41.040
thing as price, and obviously there is such a thing as value.

27
00:02:41.040 --> 00:02:48.360
Now the man who did the basic work here is a man named Adam Smith, and in 1776 he published

28
00:02:48.360 --> 00:02:54.560
a book entitled The Wealth of Nations, and in this book he attempted to deal with this

29
00:02:54.560 --> 00:03:03.220
This Phenomena, or These Phenomena. And he recognized that there is such a thing as cost,

30
00:03:03.220 --> 00:03:07.480
and that there is such a thing as price, and what he wanted to figure out is what the real

31
00:03:07.480 --> 00:03:16.460
value of something is, because the cost might or might not indicate its value, or the price

32
00:03:16.460 --> 00:03:23.000
might or might not. Well, he took a look at it, and he did the best he could at the time.

33
00:03:23.000 --> 00:03:32.020
He figured that cost is whatever it costs to make a product. Then to his credit, let

34
00:03:32.020 --> 00:03:39.620
me say, he did see that the entrepreneur, that is the man who was managing the whole

35
00:03:39.620 --> 00:03:45.760
proposition, who was bringing the pieces together to make the thing work, that this man had

36
00:03:45.760 --> 00:03:52.100
the cost to pay, but that he would have no incentive to pay them or to do any of these

37
00:03:52.100 --> 00:03:53.100
and so on.

38
00:03:53.100 --> 00:04:00.620
And that which he was to get for his efforts, Smith called a profit.

39
00:04:00.620 --> 00:04:08.920
So as he saw it, the cost of production was in one area, then there was another cost which

40
00:04:08.920 --> 00:04:16.600
was the profit to the entrepreneur, and therefore the price of the item would be the cost of

41
00:04:16.600 --> 00:04:21.620
production plus the profit to the entrepreneur.

42
00:04:21.620 --> 00:04:26.180
And after Smith had thought about that for a while, he said, well, that's value. Value

43
00:04:26.180 --> 00:04:33.860
would be the equivalent of the cost of production plus a profit to the entrepreneur and the

44
00:04:33.860 --> 00:04:41.600
two together is value. Well, that idea was accepted for a while by some people, but other

45
00:04:41.600 --> 00:04:47.560
economists, who we usually think of as classicists, came along after him and they weren't quite

46
00:04:47.560 --> 00:04:55.920
as happy with it as he was. Because they pointed out, and this is a valid criticism, that if

47
00:04:55.920 --> 00:05:03.100
you have costs of production, you have the entrepreneur sitting on top of them trying

48
00:05:03.100 --> 00:05:09.460
to keep them down. But when you come to profit, why should an entrepreneur try to keep that

49
00:05:09.460 --> 00:05:16.780
down? It might be to his advantage to put that up. Therefore, the real value couldn't

50
00:05:16.780 --> 00:05:24.660
be left to the entrepreneur, because he might be able to produce a good for a dollar and

51
00:05:24.660 --> 00:05:29.740
that's all it costs him. But then he could turn around and assuming that there's a scarcity

52
00:05:29.740 --> 00:05:34.740
of these goods and it's a desirable good, what's to prevent somebody from selling that

53
00:05:34.740 --> 00:05:43.060
same thing for $10? $9 profit, $1 cost. And then that would mean that the value of the

54
00:05:43.060 --> 00:05:50.480
of the Item is $10 according to Smith, but that means that the entrepreneur is getting

55
00:05:50.480 --> 00:05:55.720
such a large lion's share that it just didn't seem equitable to these people.

56
00:05:55.720 --> 00:06:01.940
So they said the profit can't have anything to do with this.

57
00:06:01.940 --> 00:06:09.340
Value has to be somehow equated not with price, but with the cost.

58
00:06:09.340 --> 00:06:12.940
And profit is an excess value.

59
00:06:12.940 --> 00:06:18.740
It's something over and above the costs. Now, I'd like to point out that in the market

60
00:06:18.740 --> 00:06:26.540
today, we have people who still think in terms of profits being equal, excuse me, not profit

61
00:06:26.540 --> 00:06:32.700
but price, the price being equal to value, and we have other people still running around

62
00:06:32.700 --> 00:06:39.200
who think that cost is equal to value. In fact, I was in a store not too long ago in

63
00:06:39.200 --> 00:06:44.520
In the bargain basement, that's where I do my shopping, I was down in the basement, and

64
00:06:44.520 --> 00:06:51.000
I was pricing some goods and talking to the clerk, and a lady came along and she interrupted,

65
00:06:51.000 --> 00:06:57.880
actually a little rudely, and she said to the clerk, she said, this material here, she

66
00:06:57.880 --> 00:07:02.600
pointed to a particular type of garment that was on an adjoining counter, she said, I see

67
00:08:02.600 --> 00:08:19.600
The more they pay, the more it's worth. Is that true? No. Not necessarily. Was to her. That was her value judgment of the matter. She felt that if she paid more, it was worth more.

68
00:08:19.600 --> 00:08:29.600
And this happens all the time. I have known of other cases where an item of merchandise will be put on sale at a relatively low price and nobody buys it.

69
00:08:29.600 --> 00:08:45.600
And then some smart promoter will get hold of it and say, well, the problem is that people who see that particular item priced in that bracket just don't think that item can be priced in that bracket and be worth anything.

70
00:08:45.600 --> 00:08:52.600
We've priced it too low. Price it back up here. And then you put the price up in the lines formed to buy it.

71
00:08:52.600 --> 00:08:57.600
Because that's the way people sometimes formulate a value judgment.

72
00:08:57.600 --> 00:09:04.240
Now other people think that cost determines the value. And, of course, this was begun

73
00:09:04.240 --> 00:09:11.240
by the classical economists who contended that this was the case. In fact, we have two

74
00:09:11.240 --> 00:09:18.660
major economists following Smith. Their names are David Ricardo and Jeremy Bentham. Jeremy

75
00:09:18.660 --> 00:09:24.240
Bentham a little prior to Ricardo. And they took a good hard look at this question of

76
00:09:24.240 --> 00:09:33.400
of Value. And they thought it very definitely related to cost. And therefore, the profit,

77
00:09:33.400 --> 00:09:40.880
you see, should be minimized. It should not be permitted to get too high because the real

78
00:09:40.880 --> 00:09:45.760
value is in the cost of production. And a little bit of profit is all right, but anything

79
00:09:45.760 --> 00:09:53.580
over that is out. And then, of course, you finally get the idea that any profit is actually

80
00:09:53.580 --> 00:10:01.100
and Excess Value and is in a sense cheating of the public somehow, and therefore profits

81
00:10:01.100 --> 00:10:05.900
should be abolished and everything should operate simply on the basis of cost.

82
00:10:05.900 --> 00:10:11.740
Now Karl Marx came along, very much influenced by David Ricardo, and he made a career out

83
00:10:11.740 --> 00:10:18.740
of that idea and worked that into his Das Kapital, because it seemed to him, and here

84
00:10:18.740 --> 00:10:26.980
Here is the particular Marxian way of looking at it, that if you have a dollar of profit,

85
00:10:26.980 --> 00:10:30.660
you have cheated somebody, but guess who you've cheated?

86
00:10:30.660 --> 00:10:35.160
You haven't cheated the buyer, you've cheated the workman.

87
00:10:35.160 --> 00:10:43.360
In fact, Marx stated this, it's a very interesting phrase, and it keys you in on the entire Marxist

88
00:10:43.360 --> 00:10:56.360
In this economic theory, a dollar of profit is an unpaid wage. That's Karl Marx. Quote and unquote. A dollar of profit is an unpaid wage.

89
00:10:56.360 --> 00:11:09.360
Example. Let's suppose that I wanted to build a desk. I don't want to build one myself, but I would like to have one, and there isn't one around that I can buy.

90
00:11:09.360 --> 00:11:15.420
So I find a young man who has the necessary tools and is skilled as a carpenter or a cabinet

91
00:11:15.420 --> 00:11:19.640
maker and I say to him, young fellow, I would like a desk and I'd like to hire you to

92
00:11:19.640 --> 00:11:25.900
build one and deliver it to me. And he says, fine, I'll be glad to do it. And we discuss

93
00:11:25.900 --> 00:11:31.560
the specifications and the price. And he agrees, let me suppose, to build me the desk that

94
00:11:31.560 --> 00:11:39.880
I want precisely to my specifications for, let us suppose, $50. And he does so. And

95
00:11:39.880 --> 00:11:46.760
he delivers the desk and I pay him $50. Fine. Now what have we established by this process?

96
00:11:46.760 --> 00:11:53.680
What we have established is the price of the desk. Because at the time he agreed to produce

97
00:11:53.680 --> 00:11:59.540
it I did not ask him how much of the $50 was going to his labor or how much he would have

98
00:11:59.540 --> 00:12:17.540
I don't know whether I paid a profit to him or just labor costs or what. I didn't ask, and he didn't tell me. I know that if I pay him $50, I get the desk, I paid him $50, I've got the desk. The desk is mine, very well.

99
00:12:17.540 --> 00:12:25.540
Now let us suppose that I take a look at it and I say, you know, this desk is a whale of an interesting desk. I don't think there's another one like it.

100
00:12:25.540 --> 00:12:33.220
and I bet I could get more for it than I paid for it. So, let's say I put up a sign or

101
00:12:33.220 --> 00:12:38.020
run an ad or something to let people know that I have this very special desk and I advertise

102
00:12:38.020 --> 00:12:47.780
it for, let me say, $85. And one day you decide that you need a desk. And so you come calling

103
00:12:47.780 --> 00:12:54.340
and I show you the desk and you say, $85. And I say, yes, that's what I'm selling it for.

104
00:12:54.340 --> 00:13:01.820
When you say, well, that seems like quite a lot, would you take a little less for cash?

105
00:13:01.820 --> 00:13:06.460
And I say, well, yes, I probably would, providing I didn't have to deliver it. Will you take

106
00:13:06.460 --> 00:13:12.340
it yourself? And they say, yes, we could do that. Would you take 75? And I say, yes, yes,

107
00:13:12.340 --> 00:13:16.800
I'll take 75, providing you take it and I don't have to deliver it. So they give me

108
00:13:16.800 --> 00:13:19.640
$75 and I turn the desk over to them.

109
00:13:19.640 --> 00:13:25.280
Now what's happened? According to Marx, I have cheated somebody. But the interesting

110
00:13:25.280 --> 00:13:31.720
thing is I didn't cheat you, who bought the desk. I cheated the young fellow that I got

111
00:13:31.720 --> 00:13:37.800
to make the desk in the first place. Because although we agreed that the price of the desk

112
00:13:37.800 --> 00:13:46.120
to me was to be $50, Marx would have contended that the only reason I entered into that relationship

113
00:13:46.120 --> 00:13:51.560
with this man was that because I was smarter than he was and had figured out how to exploit

114
00:13:51.560 --> 00:13:58.560
him, I was engaged in exploiting him and making a profit on his labor, because I was smart

115
00:13:58.560 --> 00:14:04.840
enough to know that the desk was worth more than $50 even before I saw it, and therefore

116
00:14:04.840 --> 00:14:10.920
I was taking advantage of him. Now that's the Marxist labor theory of value. Do you

117
00:14:10.920 --> 00:14:17.400
You note that the whole value is presumed to relate to the cost of production, and the

118
00:14:17.400 --> 00:14:21.480
cost of production is presumed to relate to the cost of labor, because that's what it

119
00:14:21.480 --> 00:14:29.680
is you pay for. In all production, you tend to pay most for labor. If you want some wood

120
00:14:29.680 --> 00:14:33.960
and you're in a primitive situation, you don't go up to a tree and offer it a five

121
00:14:33.960 --> 00:14:39.960
dollar bill. You hire a woodsman to go up to the tree and cut it down. You pay the woodsman,

122
00:14:39.960 --> 00:14:57.960
and it was Marx's contention that the only rightful cost is the cost of labor and therefore if you pay the cost of labor, that's all you have to pay because the value of an item is exactly the cost of the labor of production.

123
00:14:57.960 --> 00:15:10.460
Anything more than that is an excess value and, in consequence, if I could collect more than I paid the laborers for producing something, then I'm simply cheating the laborers.

124
00:15:10.460 --> 00:15:16.960
They are entitled to 100% of whatever I can get on the basis of what they produce.

125
00:15:16.960 --> 00:15:23.960
Now that's the Marxist theory. I do not agree with it. I think it is a very bad theory. In fact, I don't think it would hold up at all.

126
00:15:23.960 --> 00:15:27.940
Well, and I might point out that even Marx didn't think so, because in the third volume

127
00:15:27.940 --> 00:15:32.320
of Das Kapital he contradicts this, although he sets it forth in the first volume. So he

128
00:15:32.320 --> 00:15:36.720
isn't quite sure himself, and he runs a little bit around in the circle. But a lot of people

129
00:15:36.720 --> 00:15:41.160
are still running around in that same circle, and they are still contending that a dollar

130
00:15:41.160 --> 00:15:43.940
of profit is an unpaid wage.

131
00:15:43.940 --> 00:15:50.280
Now what really is value? Well, I'd like to show you that actually we're way afield

132
00:15:50.280 --> 00:16:00.720
There is such a thing as cost. Cost is objective. It is a fact. Whatever you have to pay to

133
00:16:00.720 --> 00:16:08.420
produce something, including the cost of the entrepreneur, which is a cost of doing business.

134
00:16:08.420 --> 00:16:12.940
Whatever the entrepreneur gets, it's simply the cost of management. I might point out

135
00:16:12.940 --> 00:16:17.160
that even Marx saw this later on. Although he didn't think much of managers, he conceded

136
00:16:17.160 --> 00:16:22.080
that there was a managerial function and it had to be performed but managers didn't do

137
00:16:22.080 --> 00:16:26.160
really too much and therefore they shouldn't get very much. Their wage should be small

138
00:16:26.160 --> 00:16:31.600
but they were entitled to a wage. In any case, the entrepreneur, the man that puts it together

139
00:16:31.600 --> 00:16:34.800
and I'm not speaking here of the manager, I'm speaking of the entrepreneur. The fellow

140
00:16:34.800 --> 00:16:41.120
that puts together gets what we call a profit but the profit is merely a cost of doing business.

141
00:16:41.120 --> 00:16:45.800
That's really what it is. It isn't something left over after all the other bills are paid.

142
00:16:45.800 --> 00:16:50.240
is one of the bills that has to be paid. It's paid to the guy that made it all possible.

143
00:16:50.240 --> 00:16:58.240
So that is an essential. But whatever the cost is, it is. It's real. You can figure

144
00:16:58.240 --> 00:17:02.360
it out. You may have to sharpen your pencil, but it's there. It is a part of the real

145
00:17:02.360 --> 00:17:07.840
world. It is objective. It belongs to that philosophic order of things that we call objective

146
00:17:07.840 --> 00:17:14.840
reality. The same can be said for price. Price, too, is objective and real. You can find out

147
00:17:15.800 --> 00:17:45.800
Now, what's value? Value is in another category entirely. And although this may surprise you, may I assure you that value has no value in the

148
00:17:45.800 --> 00:17:53.560
No necessary connection with either cost or price. Value is subjective. It belongs to

149
00:17:53.560 --> 00:18:01.440
an entirely different philosophic order. It is a state of mind. It's the way you look

150
00:18:01.440 --> 00:18:08.240
at something. You are not concerned with what it costs to make it. You are concerned with

151
00:18:08.240 --> 00:18:14.240
what you are going to have to pay for it. But you don't judge it as having any kind

152
00:18:14.240 --> 00:18:23.440
of a Fixed Value. It has a value to you compared to other things that you also value, and so

153
00:18:23.440 --> 00:18:30.360
you never value anything absolutely. You value relatively in terms of other things that you

154
00:18:30.360 --> 00:18:37.320
also value. For instance, take the desk again. You would like to buy the desk and you are

155
00:18:37.320 --> 00:18:45.820
are willing to pay $75 for the desk. Why will you pay $75? Because, in your judgment, that

156
00:18:45.820 --> 00:18:56.240
price is satisfactory, whereas $85 isn't. What's the desk really worth? You don't know.

157
00:18:56.240 --> 00:19:05.180
And you really don't care. It's worth $75 to you, at that time, in terms of the value

158
00:19:05.180 --> 00:19:11.920
Now, let me show you an interesting thing, and here's where many people are confused.

159
00:19:11.920 --> 00:19:17.260
You might say, well, fine, in this instance where the party comes in and buys the desk

160
00:19:17.260 --> 00:19:24.460
from me, I paid $50 for it. I have not only established when I paid $50, I established

161
00:19:24.460 --> 00:19:31.460
the price to me of the desk, but also I established the value. This might be said. And then this

162
00:19:31.460 --> 00:19:37.060
This other party comes in and buys it from me for $75 and at that time we've established

163
00:19:37.060 --> 00:19:42.220
the price that I sell it for and the party buying it, we would say, well, hasn't that

164
00:19:42.220 --> 00:19:43.700
established the value?

165
00:19:43.700 --> 00:19:46.800
And actually we didn't establish the value either time.

166
00:19:46.800 --> 00:19:48.920
We don't know what the desk is worth.

167
00:19:48.920 --> 00:19:52.620
And the interesting thing is we'll never really find out.

168
00:19:52.620 --> 00:20:00.680
Because it works this way, the only reason I was willing to spend $50 for the desk is

169
00:20:00.680 --> 00:20:09.080
Because to me, the desk was worth more than $50. You see, I've got the $50. I already have that.

170
00:20:09.880 --> 00:20:17.800
But I'm ready to get rid of it if I could get the desk. So in my order of value preference,

171
00:20:18.440 --> 00:20:26.360
I prefer the desk to the $50. And that means that to me, the desk is worth more than $50.

172
00:20:26.360 --> 00:20:34.020
How about the fellow that made it for me? Well, to him it isn't. When he agreed to

173
00:20:34.020 --> 00:20:42.240
accept $50, he was saying to himself, I would rather have the $50 than my time and skills

174
00:20:42.240 --> 00:20:48.180
and energy that have got to go into making this desk. So as far as he was concerned,

175
00:20:48.180 --> 00:20:54.540
the money that he got from me was worth more than what he sold me. As far as I was concerned,

176
00:20:54.540 --> 00:21:01.940
What I bought from him was worth more than what I paid. Who was right? We both were.

177
00:21:01.940 --> 00:21:09.620
Because nobody coerced anybody. I wanted the desk more than $50. He wanted the $50 more

178
00:21:09.620 --> 00:21:18.060
than the desk. We both were looking for one thing, a plus factor. That's why we act.

179
00:21:18.060 --> 00:21:25.440
We act in search of plus-factors. Wherever we find a plus-factor existing, we will tend

180
00:21:25.440 --> 00:21:32.820
to act. Just as in this second case, now someone comes in to buy the desk for me. We aggle

181
00:21:32.820 --> 00:21:38.860
over it a bit. I have a price that's $85. I won't pay that. But finally, an agreed-upon

182
00:21:38.860 --> 00:21:46.860
price is arrived at. $75. What does this mean? Does it mean that the desk is now valued at

183
00:21:46.860 --> 00:21:54.660
No. That's the price. What's the value of the desk? We'll never find out. All that we

184
00:21:54.660 --> 00:22:03.100
know is that in the mind of the buyer, the desk is worth more than $75 because the party

185
00:22:03.100 --> 00:22:09.320
is ready to get rid of $75 in order to get the desk. The party would rather have the

186
00:22:09.320 --> 00:22:15.960
desk than the $75. It's worth more than $75. It isn't worth more than $85, but it is worth

187
00:22:15.960 --> 00:22:26.040
I'm ready to take $75 rather than keep the desk. So what does that mean? It means that

188
00:22:26.040 --> 00:22:33.360
I value the $75 more than the desk. Which one of us is right? We both are. Because each

189
00:22:33.360 --> 00:22:40.880
one of us is getting our highest value in terms of a voluntary action that molests no

190
00:22:40.880 --> 00:22:49.880
No one at all. Whether I make $25 on the transaction or whether I lose $25 on the transaction doesn't

191
00:22:49.880 --> 00:22:58.400
alter the nature of the transaction, assuming it is voluntary. When I act to exchange, I

192
00:22:58.400 --> 00:23:06.880
will act to improve my situation. I will have a plus factor there for me, or I won't act.

193
00:23:06.880 --> 00:23:12.140
And the same applies to you. If you act to exchange something, there has got to be a

194
00:23:12.140 --> 00:23:19.540
plus factor in it for you, or you won't act. In a free market, each exchange brings

195
00:23:19.540 --> 00:23:25.460
profit to all parties to the exchange, or the exchange doesn't occur.

196
00:23:25.460 --> 00:23:33.140
Now that is how value functions. Value is subjective. It is a state of mind. Here I

197
00:23:33.140 --> 00:23:40.740
I thought the desk was worth more than $50 to me, and then I thought it was worth less

198
00:23:40.740 --> 00:23:47.360
than $75. I would rather have $75, but I would rather have the desk than $50. So my position

199
00:23:47.360 --> 00:23:53.300
was somewhere between $50 and $75. But now this new party comes in and the new party would

200
00:23:53.300 --> 00:23:59.100
rather have the desk than $75. And what the new party will do with the desk? I don't know.

201
00:23:59.100 --> 00:24:08.100
I don't know, and it doesn't concern me. This is how we operate. Whatever it is that

202
00:24:08.100 --> 00:24:15.620
we do, I'm explaining this in familiar store terms where we go into stores and we buy things,

203
00:24:15.620 --> 00:24:19.780
but this sort of thing happens all the time anyway. It doesn't have to be translated

204
00:24:19.780 --> 00:24:25.740
into terms of money. It simply is translated into terms of decision-making. When I make

205
00:24:25.740 --> 00:24:31.280
Make a decision, for instance, to go to work. It isn't necessarily that I'm going to enjoy

206
00:24:31.280 --> 00:24:37.520
going to work. I might much more enjoy going to the beach and lying there and sunning myself.

207
00:24:37.520 --> 00:24:46.300
Why do I go to work? It is because in terms of the costs involved and the profits involved,

208
00:24:46.300 --> 00:24:52.680
and having weighed these, I would decide that I would rather go to work than go to the beach

209
00:24:52.680 --> 00:24:57.800
Even though I don't really want to go to work, I'd rather not take the losses that

210
00:24:57.800 --> 00:25:00.000
are entailed in going to the beach.

211
00:25:00.000 --> 00:25:05.360
So it all adds up to a plus factor, or I don't go.

212
00:25:05.360 --> 00:25:07.800
And that is the way we act.

213
00:25:07.800 --> 00:25:15.920
Every human being is in search of maximizing his values, and that's precisely how we do

214
00:25:15.920 --> 00:25:16.920
it.

215
00:25:16.920 --> 00:25:25.720
So, value is in a state of flux. It isn't nailed down. There is no such thing as a statement

216
00:25:25.720 --> 00:25:32.220
that this particular item of property is worth so many dollars. The answer is, compared to

217
00:25:32.220 --> 00:25:39.240
what? Like the gentleman you know who was asked, how's your wife? And his answer was,

218
00:25:39.240 --> 00:25:46.400
compared to whom? You know, it's relative. You've got to figure out, it's always a comparison.

219
00:25:46.400 --> 00:25:47.800
You compare things.

220
00:25:47.800 --> 00:25:50.240
Money has no fixed value.

221
00:25:50.240 --> 00:25:52.400
It only has value when you spend it.

222
00:25:52.400 --> 00:25:57.620
And it only has value in comparison with other things that you also value.

223
00:25:57.620 --> 00:25:59.400
So that's the way you operate.

224
00:25:59.400 --> 00:26:07.680
You operate seeking to maximize your sense of plus factors, whatever they may be.

225
00:26:07.680 --> 00:26:10.840
And in this respect, every one of us will be different.

226
00:26:10.840 --> 00:26:14.400
We will all value different things in different ways.

227
00:26:14.400 --> 00:26:21.840
Now here was the idea of Marx then, that value is objective and related to cost. Here is

228
00:26:21.840 --> 00:26:27.800
the value of Smith, that value is objective and related to price. But in point of fact,

229
00:26:27.800 --> 00:26:35.400
value is subjective and although cost and price might influence our subjective judgment,

230
00:26:35.400 --> 00:26:41.920
it has no real merit. For instance, if you go to the grocery store to buy a can of soup,

231
00:26:41.920 --> 00:26:46.440
I'll wager that you have never gone up to the grocery clerk, or if you have, it would

232
00:26:46.440 --> 00:26:53.480
be a rarity, and said to the store manager or the clerk, before I buy this can of soup,

233
00:26:53.480 --> 00:26:58.360
I want to know what the wages were of the fellow that put the soup in the can. You're

234
00:26:58.360 --> 00:27:05.360
not buying his labor. You're buying the soup. And you're buying the soup in terms of scarce

235
00:27:05.360 --> 00:27:11.280
money that you could also buy something else with, but you now value the soup fairly highly,

236
00:27:11.280 --> 00:27:16.120
So you're willing to part with so much money for the soup, but not more than so much, and

237
00:27:16.120 --> 00:27:24.820
so you make a comparative value. Values are subjective, relative, and invariably in motion.

238
00:27:24.820 --> 00:27:30.720
You might picture it this way. Think of having in your mind a vertical scale beginning with

239
00:27:30.720 --> 00:27:37.420
A, A, B, C, D, E, running down vertically in a vertical line. You will always deal off

240
00:27:37.420 --> 00:27:50.180
Always you will take the highest value in terms of what you yourself want if you are

241
00:27:50.180 --> 00:27:55.940
given free choice. And the interesting thing is, once you have selected A, it will no longer

242
00:27:55.940 --> 00:28:02.060
be your highest value. It will move someplace else and something else will come to the top.

243
00:28:02.060 --> 00:28:09.860
It might be V, it might be F, G or W, because once you have acquired A, which is a value

244
00:28:09.860 --> 00:28:15.660
you wanted, everything is revalued. And so then the world looks different to you and

245
00:28:15.660 --> 00:28:21.160
you now are going to want something else. Man is a creature of wants and he acts to

246
00:28:21.160 --> 00:28:26.500
fulfill them in terms of his highest value at the time. Thanks very much.