I can't really be sure, just like most other things I suppose. I myself never bought into that whole torn jeans charade myself, and the torn jeans I wore once was from being worn out. But I think it has a lot to do with television, shopping malls, and our great fascination with rebellion.

But I think it has a lot to do with television, shopping malls, and our great fascination with rebellion. — unforeseen

Yes, and a corporation didn’t create that, they just tapped into it.

but I believe it is worth talking about the effect of an expanding marketplace where ‘novelty’ and ‘rarity’ become the norm - as strange as that sounds. — I like sushi

I’m only playing devil’s advocate here. How could the ‘rarity’ remain the norm. When it became the ‘norm’ more would want it. So then it’s no longer a ‘rarity’. The only way to maintain it as a rarity is to make the price prohibitive to most.

Maybe I’m not getting it, maybe you mean a unique experience or relationship with a product.

Yep. I mean, we're no Gods. We know very little, and most of that comes from without rather than within. When we see lots of people doing something, we say that must be good, right? And it's useful sometimes, to learn and copy. Lets you be cool without getting you into trouble. It's okay to wear torn jeans, it is not okay to wear a hat torn into tatters. People will think you're crazy or something, and treat you likewise. But at least you get to wear torn jeans, I mean, the rockstars and other cool people you like all do it and it is socially acceptable.

So you’re still looking outside the individual for an explanation. Where does responsibility lie?

1. The desire to be rich
2. The desire to be cool

But that's not really human nature. Human nature is flexible. It depends on your particular circumstances and socio-cultural condition.

I know it sounds weird. I meant as ‘tailor made’, there seems to be technologies coming into play that will provide ‘custom design’ by the consumer and I believe this could drive more demand for actual individually produced items by individuals for individuals.

I do wonder about how this could possibly lead to ‘monetary worth’ shifting more into alignment with artistic sensibility rather than as a ‘symbol of status’ - fashion as a true force for concerns with artistic appreciation in terms of how art can benefit people as opposed to mere ‘peacocking’.

I know it sounds weird. I meant as ‘tailor made’, there seems to be technologies coming into play that will provide ‘custom design’ by the consumer and I believe this could drive more demand for actual individually produced items by individuals for individuals. — I like sushi

It’s not so weird. I know people who will go out of their way to buy organic milk and meat. They’re prepared to pay more for it because it’s no longer a commodity, because the transaction also contains ideas about health, the environment, support of small, individual producers, and rebellion against corporate culture.

[quote="unforeseen;353348"
]1. The desire to be rich
2. The desire to be cool

But that's not really human nature. Human nature is flexible. It depends on your particular circumstances and socio-cultural condition.[/quote]

Well it ain’t animal nature. What’s left?

Individualism.

I'd say something but then I remember the world wars. Who is responsible? Or what is responsible? Depends on how you look at it I suppose.

You mean virtue signalling? Conservatives probably hate that concept more than 'entitlement' as of lately.

I read that at first as 'enlightenment' and it still made sense hahahahaha

:grin:

They need that too. But, then again they are die-hard enlightened self-interest blokes.

If there is one thing I know about all this, it is that the main question for every sensible person is that of freedom. Freedom from an apathetic nature, freedom from an oppressive society, and freedom from an adulterated self. Everything else is just chit-chat haha

Profundity lays here!!

:halo:

later!

Oh wait. I forgot love. That stuffs pretty important too . Haha. Love and compassion. Ciao!

It appears I got it correct then. I guess ‘decrease’ may have been s misleading term though. I meant more or less to lessen the gaze of fetishism and put value into the commodity as item produced artistically/aesthetically.

I’m not massively familiar with this area so you’ll have to excuse as I claw around for the best terms. There does appear to be something conflicting in what I’ve read of Marx concerning what is and isn’t delineated as a ‘resource’ or ‘commodity’, and how they relate.

Individualism — unforeseen

That’s what the advertising would have you believe, but really it’s narcissism, don’t you think? Playing up to the idea that your special, not like the others, not a sheep but an ‘individual’.

And if not narcissism then self esteem.

I’m not massively familiar with this area so you’ll have to excuse as I claw around for the best terms. There does appear to be something conflicting in what I’ve read of Marx concerning what is and isn’t delineated as a ‘resource’ or ‘commodity’, and how they relate. — I like sushi

Forgive me if I’m teaching you to suck eggs or even wrong here.

Resources would be iron ore, for instance, and the labour removing it from the ground. Both have no value in themselves.
The iron ore is sold on to be turned into steel. Once again neither the steel nor the labour have any value in themselves. Then the steel is bought by a company that turns the steel into washing machines, or driers, or fridges. The labour still has no value in itself, but the fridge, the commodity, most certainly does.

The selling price of the fridge determines the profit factor, the difference between what was paid in labour and resources and what it’s sold for. The iron ore is worthless without the end result; the fridge, the commodity. The wages for the labour is determined by the profit in each fridge. If wage demands get too high then there’s not enough profit in fridges to bother. So, no fridges produced, no steel purchased, no ore removed from the ground.

Some fridges can be sold at very high prices because of their perceived value. None of that changes the level of wages or the price of iron ore or steel. A shortage of iron ore might change the price, among other things.

In some products, promoted well, they can get away with charging far more than went into production. I imagine iPhones being one such product, or jeans with the knee ripped out.

Then the commodity is sold back to the worker who’s been convinced that he/she must have the product, and in my opinion, within certain limits, enables the whole game.

Only if you’re judging ‘value’ by monetary means. I’m not. Just because money is a practical measure of ‘value’ in terms of economics it certainly isn’t the only possible means of measure.

The ‘labour’ is of value to the individual in the sense that it is understood to be of import both in terms of social status (personal aptitude) and/or an individual’s personal attitude to the task at hand.

I don’t see ‘economics’ as some body orbiting ‘monetary value’. That is - just to repeat for emphasis - not to say I find ‘monetary value’ redundant.

The criteria with which I am approaching ‘economics’ is in a broad sense with emphasis toward more ‘personal’/‘subjective’/‘abstract’ understandings, especially in relation to ‘taste’, ‘aesthetic appreciation’, ‘communication/education’, and such other items that are not often the focus of attention in terms of ‘resources’ because they are not readily measurable in a monetary sense - and maybe they shouldn’t be thought of as being items to which to attach ‘price tags’.

I most certainly think it is a flawed approach to view ‘economics’ as primarily a system of valuing everything/anything only in terms of monetary valuation - and to repeat again (to avoid being misquoted) I certainly don’t see monetary valuation as redundant.

Just to make what I am referring to explicit I’ll use a personal example. I have won money playing poker, yet the best game of poker I ever had didn’t involve me winning any money. The personal experience gained far outweighed the loss of money. In this sense the ‘monetary value’ is relative in many different circumstances and this is the use of money as a fungible ‘go-between’ of subjective judgement. Even if I’m paid in ‘food’ or ‘clothes’ the judgement is never static in the now - the difficulty is how some people are more willing to commit to some given personal project where others are not (or simply never come to grapple with anything in life with considered direction). In this sense the ‘willingness’ of effort varies drastically from one individual to another in terms of projecting themselves into the future as a possibility at odds with their current situation/circumstances.

Like I said, maybe this does sound quite strange - more strange than it should - because I’ve only relatively recently turned my thoughts to this matter in ‘economic’ terms.

Thanks for the feedback/bounce-back :)

Just to make what I am referring to explicit I’ll use a personal example. I have won money playing poker, yet the best game of poker I ever had didn’t involve me winning any money. The personal experience gained far outweighed the loss of money. — I like sushi

I absolutely understand what you’re saying here, I hope. And I want to go back to your first post about custom made products in terms of your poker analogy.

If I understand the concept correctly wouldn’t custom made products decrease, to some degree, Commodity Fetishism?

By this I mean that the ‘value’ of labour can be recovered through the interaction of the consumer with the producer - obviously this would be optimal if all transactions took places on an individual to individual basis. — I like sushi

The ‘value’ of labour your talking about is not monetary. That value x can be recovered in other ways through direct contact between producer and consumer.

Let’s say you were a potter. You made ceramic pots, you applied all the knowledge you had acquired yo each pot, and you also pushed yourself beyond what you knew and entered new territory in your work that took things to another level. The pleasure/value you received was in the act, which, let’s say was almost transcendental: pleasure, sureness of skills and knowledge, the opening out of new possibilities.

The next step is the transaction between producer and consumer. Someone loves the pot, they’re ecstatic, their response adds further to this value. What shall you sell this pot for? If it’s not your only source of income, then fine, except you still have to pay for your physical resources. But if not then you need to make a living. What is the worth of this pot in monetary terms? How do you avoid this trap of monetary value?

You could give it away. But ironically a payment makes people consider how much they really want something. If it’s free people will take with very little thought to what went into it. It’s almost like in the real world, outside of our lives, a monetary value has to be attached otherwise it has no value at all, including the personal value you imbedded in it.

If it’s free people will take with very little thought to what went into it. It’s almost like in the real world, outside of our lives, a monetary value has to be attached otherwise it has no value at all, including the personal value you imbedded in it. — Brett

This is simply not true. I know an artist that doesn't sell any of her original work, only prints; she simply doesn't put a price on the originals; she does so because she values the originals.

Likewise, hand-made scarf given as a gift may have a lot of value to both the producer and the receiver, but there is no monetary value attached.

If the pot in your example was given away, it may hold more value than if it was sold, as the sales price may indicate that it can be replaced for the same price; so, if it's not expensive, the owner may not care much about it. Whereas, as a gift, it may symbolize the entire relationship.

The difference of course is that original artwork, scarves, and pots that are not placed on the market are not commodities.

This is simply not true. I know an artist that doesn't sell any of her original work, only prints; she simply doesn't put a price on the originals; she does so because she values the originals. — boethius

Well you’ve focused on only four lines of my post, so it’s a bit out of context. However your friend may make a lot more money selling the same thing repeatedly than if she sold the original.

Well you’ve focused on only four lines of my post, so it’s a bit out of context. — Brett

Please, show how the context changes the meaning of the four lines I am debating against. I agree with your previous statements setting up the problem of assigning a price; that you may need to do so to recover costs or to make a living; and that price may not reflect your personal sentiment about your work nor transmit transcendental value you may have encountered in the production process.

I have issue with your next claim you make that without a price we wouldn't value something. I don't see how your previous statements support such a claim, and I see lot's of counter-examples of which I provide 3.

But please, explain how the context supports the claim I am focused on.

f the pot in your example was given away, it may hold more value than if it was sold, as the sales price may indicate that it can be replaced for the same price; so, if it's not expensive, the owner may not care much about it. Whereas, as a gift, it may symbolize the entire relationship. — boethius

But not everything produced can be given away. I think I like sushi is still talking about co-existing in a world of economic transactions.

But not everything produced can be given away. I think I like sushi is still talking about co-existing in a world of economic transactions. — Brett

Where do I say that?

You say:

You could give it away. But ironically a payment makes people consider how much they really want something. If it’s free people will take with very little thought to what went into it. It’s almost like in the real world, outside of our lives, a monetary value has to be attached otherwise it has no value at all, including the personal value you imbedded in it. — Brett

As mentioned in my first response, I don't see how this claim is supported by some context, but please explain how it is if I am missing something.

I have issue with your next claim you make that without a price we wouldn't value something. I don't see how your previous statements support such a claim, and I see lot's of counter-examples of which I provide 3.

But please, explain how the context supports the claim I am focused on. — boethius

Okay. I’m not saying that we can’t value something if it doesn’t have a price. I think, or hope, I made that clear. It’s my opinion that a price on a product is inclined to make people consider how much they really want something. How much (not in terms of money) but how important is this product to me, and how much do I really want it? Or is it just a whim? Having something given to you is not the same as having a number of items on the shelf for free that you can chose from.