Sure, I can try to explain further.

You are treating price as value because you're using the mathematical concept of value (i.e. a numerical quantity). If I open a lemonade stand and produce cups of lemonade for $1 each, you would say that I value each cup of lemonade at $1. But let's say that each cup of lemonade cost me only $0.25 to produce. Where, then, did the "surplus value" come from?

This apparent problem can be erased by understanding that people have preferences which cannot be measured in terms of some absolute quantitative unit, but can only be observed to stand in relation with other preferences. Most economists (and certainly economists of the Austrian School, to which I ascribe) call this concept "value". It has nothing to do whatsoever with the mathematical concept outlined above.

Economics is not math. The fundamental units in math are numbers, while the fundamental units in economics arehuman beings. It's quite an understatement to say that the latter are far more complicated than the former. So economics must be far more nuanced and far less precise than math, because it deals with human beings first and foremost. No amount of equations and modeling can reduce people to numbers, in the end. So why even try?

What does this have to do with prices and "surplus value"? Using the economic concept of value, one must recognize that all (economic) value is subjective. So when I decide to sell each cup of lemonade (which cost me $0.25 each to produce) for $1, I'm doing so because I anticipate that enough people will prefer a cup of lemonade over the $1 that they have, to where I can receive more money than I spent making the lemonade (i.e. earn a profit). Obviously I prefer the money people give me to the lemonade I sell them. That's the point of exchange -- each person has something that the other person prefers over what he has. Does that make sense?

Now, you may argue that, even though I use the economic concept of value above, there's still a difference between the selling price and the cost of production. You'd be absolutely right. But really, so what? Again, economics is not like math -- there are no equations thatmustbe satisfied. A disparity between the selling price of a good or service and the cost it takes to produce it is not an imbalance that needs to be corrected.

As Yoda would say, no! No different! Only different in yourI agree, there are additional difficulties with 'pricing' in a modern industry due to these influences as opposed to the markets of Marx's time.mind.

Regardless of how "modern" an industry is, prices observed are the result of numerous individuals imputing their (necessarily) subjective valuations into the item(s) under consideration. Just how many individuals involved is irrelevant.

## Bookmarks