Economics Questions

Re: Moon Rocks Are More Valuable Than Gold?

Anenome — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:46:41 GMT

Malachi:
They didn't leave any objects on the moon, that's at least inductive evidence.
this also strikes me as an unjustified assumption, unless of course you have been to the moon to look for artifacts.

We [humankind] have, yes. We've and imaged mapped the entire surface of the moon. Not to any great resolution tho. I grant it's not strong inductive evidence, as the mapping isn't very fine-grained. But we can at least rule out large-scale structures being left-behind :P

Malachi:
If it was less than 100,000 years ago, we should be able to see it still I'd think?
well what is your source for images? The russian and american space agencies have released photographs of objects that dont look exactly natural. Zond-3 photographed a tower.

Yeah, would be worth looking into. As for the agencies imaging, I doubt they're fudged. Anyway, private spaceflight is a reality now. Wanna go image it for ourselves, we can.

Malachi:
theres also reason to suspect that "the ancients" were capable of nuclear war so I would tread lightly when making assumptions about the technology level of peoples we dont know much/anything about.

That would require very strong evidence indeed.

Re: Moon Rocks Are More Valuable Than Gold?

Malachi — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 01:18:20 GMT

They didn't leave any objects on the moon, that's at least inductive evidence.

this also strikes me as an unjustified assumption, unless of course you have been to the moon to look for artifacts.

If it was less than 100,000 years ago, we should be able to see it still I'd think?

well what is your source for images? The russian and american space agencies have released photographs of objects that dont look exactly natural. Zond-3 photographed a tower.

theres also reason to suspect that "the ancients" were capable of nuclear war so I would tread lightly when making assumptions about the technology level of peoples we dont know much/anything about.

Re: Moon Rocks Are More Valuable Than Gold?

Aristippus — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:05:50 GMT

We were talking on the Mises live chat before this thread was made. The initial question I was referring to occurred there, not in this thread.

Re: Moon Rocks Are More Valuable Than Gold?

xahrx — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:33:59 GMT

Ok: I don't think any of you know the context of the original conversation (except Clayton). The initial question (paraphrased) was: "Why was gold so desired for its direct use?".

Actually the original question was:

So my question is this: are moon rocks more valuable than gold because they are rarer? Or is value completely subjective and rarity does not determine value?

The answers to which aren't as easy and yes or no, because "rarer than gold" misses the point. Goods do not derrive their value based on how rare they are relative to each other, but based on a judgement of how rare they are relative to the use to which individuals want to put them. Comparing the rarity of two goods supposes an objective relationship of value based on some ratio of one to the other. That's incorrect. The value assigned to them need not even be based on fact, only the perception of rarity relative to demand. So it doesn't matter in the end why people wanted gold. They may have initially valued it for nothing more than a show of power and wealth; it was hard to find and get, therefore the person with the most was the most bad ass. It doesn't have to have any function or rational - in the colloquial sense - use. People just have to want it, and asking why misses the point of demonstrated preference and the focus on individual action.

Re: Moon Rocks Are More Valuable Than Gold?

Anenome — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:09:50 GMT

They didn't leave any objects on the moon, that's at least inductive evidence.

Even we left evidence on the moon. Tons of it. parts of landers. Dune buggy. Flag. Etc.

If it was less than 100,000 years ago, we should be able to see it still I'd think?

Re: Moon Rocks Are More Valuable Than Gold?

gotlucky — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:40:06 GMT

Because you aren't joking.

Re: Moon Rocks Are More Valuable Than Gold?

Aristippus — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:14:59 GMT

Well everyone knows that the moon only came into earth's orbit in recent times, after gold was already used as money.

I feel that I shouldn't need to indicate that I'm joking.

Re: Moon Rocks Are More Valuable Than Gold?

Malachi — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 03:50:24 GMT

I cant imagine what logical or empirical justification either of you would have for that assertion.

Re: Moon Rocks Are More Valuable Than Gold?

Clayton — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:46:13 GMT

the ancients did not have the ability to travel to the moon.

I'm voting this Best, Random, True Statement of the Month.

Clayton -

Re: Moon Rocks Are More Valuable Than Gold?

Aristippus — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:44:37 GMT

Ok: I don't think any of you know the context of the original conversation (except Clayton). The initial question (paraphrased) was: "Why was gold so desired for its direct use?". That then led into a discussion of its place in social status in antiquity, and how the rarity of the good influenced that. Note that I never said it was the only determinant of that, in fact before I even mentioned rarity I noted that it was sought after for its aesthetic qualities. The OP has completely confused the issue. Also, the ancients did not have the ability to travel to the moon.

Re: Moon Rocks Are More Valuable Than Gold?

Wheylous — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:23:06 GMT

I might value my laptop so much that if it broke I would pay $10,000.00 for it, if need be. That is its value to me in dollars.

Strictly speaking, the value is more than that, otherwise you would not give up the money.

Re: Moon Rocks Are More Valuable Than Gold?

xahrx — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:39:59 GMT

So my question is this: are moon rocks more valuable than gold because they are rarer? Or is value completely subjective and rarity does not determine value?

Rare relative to demand is what counts. There are substances far more scarce than gold that aren't valuable at all because there's no demand for them. Either no one knows they exist, or few do. Or, they don't know how to aquire them, or few do. Or, once aquired, no one knows how to use them, or few do, or can for that matter. Value can't exist indepdent of demand because it is people's demand and the interaction between those people and the supply of what's being demanded that creats value. Scarcity itself then, relative to this or that, isn't the determining factor.

Re: Moon Rocks Are More Valuable Than Gold?

grant.w.underwood — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:22:49 GMT

ya what does something having more value than something else have to do with it? moon rocks also crumble into dust. not good for money...

Re: Moon Rocks Are More Valuable Than Gold?

Smiling Dave — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 19:52:20 GMT

There's value and there's price.

I might value my laptop so much that if it broke I would pay $10,000.00 for it, if need be. That is its value to me in dollars.

But the market price is not determined exclusively by my valuation, and I won't have to actually pay $10,000. That's because of the laws of supply and demand. What these laws say basically is that at a given price, there will be a certain amount of people willing to sell laptops, and a certain amount willing to buy them. At $500 a laptop, I am ceratinly one of the buyers, since I would pay much more than that if need be. Luckily for me, there are plenty of sellers who want money so badly they will part with their laptops for $500.

Where does rarity fit in here? Rarity means low supply. Now the higher the supply, the more willing the suppliers are to settle for a low price. This is for two reasons. First, because they can make more money usually selling a large quantity, even if it as a lower price. Second, because a large supply often means more people supplying, which increases competition, as well as the odds of some of them willing to settle for less money than if the amount of suppliers was less, obviously.

Does rarity make me value something more? In other words, if laptops were extremely rare, would I be willing to pay more than $10,000? For some items, yes. Usually these are items whose main use is showing off. If I have the only moon rock on Earth, I have bragging rights, which may give the rock more value to me than if everyone had a moon rock in their living rooms.

Bottom line, in some cases, rarity increases the subjective value of an object. It will also usually increase the price, by the laws of supply and demand.

Of course, some objects will always have zero value, no matter how rare. Camel dung from a three legged camel who could juggle is pretty rare, but I doubt anyone would want it. Maybe that's not the best example, but I hope I got the idea across.

Re: Moon Rocks Are More Valuable Than Gold?

Wheylous — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:02:13 GMT

Relevant:

http://www.learnliberty.org/content/thinking-margin/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=Why%20are%20diamonds%20more%20expensive%20than%20water?%20&utm_campaign=social%20referrals%2013