Yes, and my (limited) understanding of most economic theories is that the "raw" environment is the baseline - the datum line - for value. Human activity adds (or sometimes possibly subtracts?) value, to varying degrees. As I understand it, it's this "value-added" that is deemed to count economically. And, as discussed below, value is subjective and exists in minds (I propose).Wossname wrote:I agree human labour creates wealth by adding value to the environment and helping to provide the goods and services we want or need.
Yes, money allows us to quantify the variable value we put on different types of human labour. What that value actually turns out to be is determined by the extent to which the products of a given type of labour are valued by various people.But, as you acknowledge, the value we give that labour varies, ...
I agree. Money is a means of exchange (I've proposed ...of human labour. You think it's more things too.). Wealth is an accumulation of products of human labour which people consider to have value. Many things tend to be almost universally valued, sometimes leading to the mistaken impression that value is an objectively, extra-mentally existing property, but the value that any one person places on anything is ultimately personal and subjective. At least, that's my understanding....and we must not confuse wealth and money.
To my mind, these are all examples of the fact that value is subjective as I said above. There are some products of human labour that a large proportion of the population tend to value and some things that are valued only by a few, or perhaps just one. Some particular thing might be highly valued by one person but not valued at all by another. There may be reasons why whole collections of people suddenly increase or decrease the value that they place on some particular product of human effort. Houses or bitcoin, for example.You can spend hours growing carrots or whittling a stick and then flog either for a few pence. You can by chance dig up a diamond in a few seconds and flog it for thousands. You can make millions as an investment banker speculating in the markets and create nothing of any value in the process.
So, to my mind, what you've illustrated above is the highly variable value that various people place on the fruits of various human efforts. In the last example, you offered your opinion of the low value you place on the efforts of investment bankers. Obviously some people must disagree with you or those investment bankers wouldn't be able to sell their services.
I guess the reasons to value or not to value the act of investing money, and the extent to which investment banks are either blood-sucking parasites or vital facilitators of the movement of money to where it can do most good (or somewhere in between), is a whole subject in itself.
Well, taking those three in turn:I am not sure your attempt to link money directly to human effort works for me. I prefer the accepted descriptions of its use, i.e. a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value.
"Medium of exchange" is what I'm calling it too. But I've proposed that everything being exchanged ultimately boils down to the exchange of human effort. Maybe I'm wrong. It's just an idea to think about.
"Unit of account", by, itself, sounds a bit vague and tautological to me.
"Store of value" seems, at first sight, to be confusing money and wealth.
I suppose it depends whether you take a generally instrumentalist view of defining things. If you do, them you could argue that the way a tool is used is synonymous with what it is. It could be argued that, since money is an entirely abstract concept and therefore has no material physical properties, it has to be entirely defined in terms of the way that it is used.Of course a difficulty is separating how it is used from what it is. There is a risk of blurring boundaries
Yes, you've said many times that it represents a credit-debit relationship. I agree, but I just don't find it a very instrumentally useful definition by itself because it says nothing of the activities in the physical world that the abstract concept of money facilitates. It stays in the abstract realm.You say it is something which represents human labour or activity. I say it represents a credit-debit relationship. So care must be taken in our use of language or we invite confusion.
I realize that. I am not annoyed! (Here's a smiley face to prove it!)I am not trying to annoy.