From MES:
"The interchangeability of units in the supply of a good does not mean that the concrete units are actually valued equally. They may and will be valued differently whenever their position in the supply is different. Thus, suppose that the isolated individual successively finds one horse, then a second, then a third. Each horse may be identical and interchangeable with the others. The first horse will fulfill the most urgent wants that a horse can serve; this follows from the universal fact that action uses scarce means to satisfy the most urgent of the not yet satisfied wants. When the second horse is found, he will be put to work satisfying the most urgent of the wants remaining. These wants, however, must be ranked lower than the wants that the previous horse has satisfied. Similarly, the third horse acquired might be capable of performing the same service as the others, but he will be put to work fulfilling the highest of the remaining wants— which, however, will yet be lower in value than the others."
1. Is it correct that by "ranked lower" he means "valued less" (which would logically make it RANKED higher)? and that by "lower in value" he means further from the most urgent i.e. RANKED HIGHER on a scale? This confuses me for two reasons. He previously ranked ends thusly: having 1. as being most urgent and 2., 3., and 4. less urgent respectively. Also, goods are considered "lower" order the closer to the first order that they are. In other words, isn't something with a lower value ranked higher, or something with a higher value ranked lower, on a scale of values?
2. "These wants, however, must be ranked lower than the wants [previously] satisfied." "But he will be put to work fulfilling the highest of the remaining wants— which, however, will yet be lower in value than the others." Does it follow that learning to crawl has a higher value than receiving a PHD, precisely because it is an end that was attained earlier?
As I understand it, as value goes up, rank goes down. Or in other words, the lower the rank, the higher the value.
Also, 2a: if ends are currently valued, and thus ranked accordingly:
1. learn to move legs
2. learn to walk
3. go to school
4. get PHD
and suppose 1. is accomplished, and now legs can be moved. The scale of values then looks like this:
1. learn to walk
2. go to school
3. get PHD
4. retire
Is it correct that going to school is valued less than learning to move legs, i.e. eternally?
hashem: 1. Is it correct that by "ranked lower" he means "valued less" (which would logically make it RANKED higher)? and that by "lower in value" he means further from the most urgent i.e. RANKED HIGHER on a scale? This confuses me for two reasons. He previously ranked ends thusly: having 1. as being most urgent and 2., 3., and 4. less urgent respectively. Also, goods are considered "lower" order the closer to the first order that they are. In other words, isn't something with a lower value ranked higher, or something with a higher value ranked lower, on a scale of values?
I think you're overly trying to complicate things. An individual ranks his ends in ordinally. The end he values first is at the top of the list. Second place is second and so on, like you said.
When the person gets his first horse he will put it to use toward the end he values most highly. When he obtains horse number 1 he puts it to use plowing a field, demonstrating that this is his most urgent end to be satisfied with a horse. All other ends are left unsatisfied, until he gets more horses. This is the law of diminishing marginal utility.
So "highest valued", "most highly ranked" and "most urgent need" are all synonymous.
hashem:2. "These wants, however, must be ranked lower than the wants [previously] satisfied." "But he will be put to work fulfilling the highest of the remaining wants— which, however, will yet be lower in value than the others." Does it follow that learning to crawl has a higher value than receiving a PHD, precisely because it is an end that was attained earlier?
No. The law of DMU applies to homogenous goods.
hashem: As I understand it, as value goes up, rank goes down. Or in other words, the lower the rank, the higher the value. Also, 2a: if ends are currently valued, and thus ranked accordingly: 1. learn to move legs 2. learn to walk 3. go to school 4. get PHD and suppose 1. is accomplished, and now legs can be moved. The scale of values then looks like this: 1. learn to walk 2. go to school 3. get PHD 4. retire Is it correct that going to school is valued less than learning to move legs, i.e. eternally?
This does not follow because you are not describing the possible uses for a homogenous good (like horses, apples or money).
Irish Liberty Forum
This is like the fallacy that the fourth wheel of a car is valued higher than the other three, because without it the car cannot be driven. In reality, all four wheels are one economic good.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
OK, since you describe the "top" of the list as being higher, that makes the first part make sense.
Still, whats confusing is: once an end is obtained, WHY is it valued higher than all successive unrelated ends, even eternally? Even once the end has been long forgotten, why is it still considered to have a higher value then every other unrelated end (obtained by the same good), ever? Is that true? Obviously I'm confused or I wouldn't be here asking.
Does it all mean that "higher value" doesn't literally mean it is worth more, but that by citing its value as being higher, one can know that it was attained earlier?
You're making something concrete that is really just a pedagogal tool. There is in reality, no list as such, much less a permanent one. The 'list' is formed when you make a judgement and reformed everytime you make another judgement as to how to spend your resources. So if you're presented with an orange and you eat it, by default satisfying hunger was at the top of your 'list' of things to do with an orange. Using it to paint a still life might be in there somewhere, but as to its rank we'd never know until you're presented with enough oranges in succession and at a particular point break out a canvas and some paint and go to work. So no list nor value on a particular good or end ever exists in perpetuity. Nothing actually has value until the point of choice where it is assigned and we can see a preference demonstrated. The rest is really just thought experiment with homogenous goods to demonstrate the mechanics of the point. Like supply and demand curves, they don't actually exist in the real world, it's something that's discovered through the market process. The curves and the ranking lists themselves are just ways to make concrete for people concepts that are otherwise impossible to embody.