As I have outlined in my recent previous posts. (start from bottom)
From me;
5. "Sure I get that but in what I outlined where value is placed sporadically on produce or services supplied and then according to need would we not be able to say that there would not be any poor people and would be no need to form charities to send kids to school"
From me;
4/ "So no poor people or poor people?"
From me;
3/ "Based upon that value, earlier we were discussing the poor people who would not be able to afford to send their children to a school requiring payment however if there is no such thing as money and value was only used at the time that the producer was producing and the need was needed then perhaps there would be no such thing as poor people."
From you;
2/ "Somebody who grows food could be more or less valuable than a surgeon, depending on two things. If there is no imminent need for surgery, the food grower might be seen as more valuable.
If there is a pressing need for surgery, the surgeon might be more valuable. Value is subjective to the individual making the judgement and it's often based on circumstances. likes and dislikes. wants and needs."
From me;
1/ What if there is no such thing as property and there is no such thing as money? What if the land owns us and if there is no such thing as money then why would someone who grows food be less valuable than a surgeon who performs surgery?
nope. Only that in what I outlined, there could be no poor. Perhaps too radical for you. Nothing to do with being indigenous. Nothing to do with money. Nothing to do with volunteering. Nothing to do with coercion. Nothing to do with accumulation of capital. Nothing to do with a perfect life. All based on value of production or even being. That value is determined/used by the community - consumer.
But think that almost all the examples of exchange that he has mentioned are very infrequent and almost fairy-tale exceptional exchanges, for which it would be absurd to try to establish economic rules.
They are anecdotes like the paradox of the bag of diamonds and the glass of water for the thirsty:
you well know that for each glass of water and diamond that are exchanged under those circumstances of "The Thousand and One Nights", millions of diamonds will be exchanged (and many more liters of water, of course), without those who exchange being lost in the Sahara with a bag of diamonds, nor being a (as clever as they are incredibly patient and optimistic) Saharahui cousin of mine, waiting with a dromedary skin boot, full of water...
As for Capitan's delusional model, I believe that most of the economy and the "market" will continue with the same "theory and practice of value" of current capitalism:
in my opinion, the producer follows the Marxist Theory of Value (expenses + desired benefits ) and if the situation allows it and interests it, the Theory of Power Value; and the consumer, the Subjective Marginalist Theory of Value... But Im not a Economist
Having said the above, @Microbeman I do not follow you in that "the subjective value dictated by need" would imply that there were no poor... (Although I suppose it would be better and more appropriate if you explained it in the "Commies" thread).
