The Worth of Supply:
the Other End of Pragmatism

The value of an object is created by two variables. The main issue is not the object's usefulness; instead, its value is part supply and part demand. The usefulness of an object could be justified as its demand, since the more something does, the more people need or demand it. However, its value is proportional to both factors. Indeed, neither factor outweighs the other. A breath of oxygen is probably the most useful substance in the world. Yet in the form we all can acquire with relative ease, it has no monetary value. The value changes when oxygen is put in a mask or tank. The oxygen now has great value, because it takes work to create the container and fill it with pure oxygen. Consequently a smaller supply of this form is available, which results in its monetary value being raised.

On the other hand, if something takes a long time to make, or only a small supply of this substance exists, it does not guarantee a high worth. If it has no purpose, no hedonistic attribute, no function as a tool, or no thought provoking statements, then it is worthless. If a man has a specialized skill of something that is not needed, no matter how precise or complicated this skill is, he will not be compensated for this effort.

This supply and demand theory was created by Adam Smith over two hundred years ago. It can best be illustrated by relating a ridiculous conspiracy I have just read about. One of the most valuable substances in the world is diamonds. A diamond is merely coal compressed for millions of years. Pragmatically, we see three legitimate uses and three hedonistic concepts to diamonds. Since they are coal, diamonds do burn. However, noncompressed coal burns better at a much lower price than two thousand dollars for one-and a-half carats. The second use for diamonds is for computers. A flawless diamond can speed and spread lasers. Yet any prismatic substance, or at the very least--any crystalized substance--could be used in this manner. The final use is that of the diamond's true uniqueness. A diamond is the hardest substance in the world. However, if this were the true cause of the large cost, then industrial diamonds, which are manmade and are just as hard and sharp, would be valued somewhere near the value of a true diamond.

Hedonistically, a diamond suggests power, beauty, and love. The power of a diamond is due to its cost. If it were not worth so much, its beauty could not be ranked over another stone. The beauty of a diamond is due, once it is cut, to its symmetry and its singularity. The love represented by a diamond can be explained by its tradition. Since "diamonds are forever," the love announced by the gift of a diamond is understood to mean an infinite love. For both of the latter two excuses, a simple cubic zirconium says the same thing and costs less than ten percent of an equal size diamond. .

A diamond's price tag is due to its rarity. Since diamonds can not get bigger but can be cut, a two carat diamond has the value of ten half carats. The value of a diamond increases exponentially with its size. This is also true with color. A tinted diamond, especially a yellow one, is extremely rare. This results in its being worth much more. Thus we have the priceless value of the Hope Diamond because it is large, tinted, and extremely rare.

Regardless, the conspiracy theory states that there is, in actuality, an abundant supply of diamonds. The number of diamonds allowed into the market, however, is quite small proportionately, so that the value remains. Since this bits of compressed coal apparently are not that rare, this conspiracist writes, "Caves of diamonds are stored in Africa." I could not see proof, but if this is true, then diamonds would be near worthless. Large ones, due to the impossibility of production, might retain some value, but small diamonds would have for beauty, no reason to be valued over the price of a tumbled rock or any of the previously mentioned substitutes.

Another example might be that of collectibles. Let's examine my previous hobby, baseball cards. Baseball cards are generally valuable for three reasons. First, they create a hedonistic or perhaps nostalgic look at the collector's past, or create hedonism due to the player pictured being admired by the collector. If the player is truly a legend--somebody that for whatever reason is known by everyone--such as Mantle, Mays, Ruth, or up to Griffey, Nomo, or Ripken, their cards are worth much more then regular commons. It does not necessarily matter how good that player actually was. For instance, Michael Jordan was not a good player, but since he is remembered, baseball cards of him are worth more.

The second reason is rarity. The most valuable baseball card, the T207 Honus Wagner, is worth nearly half a million dollars simply because the card was pulled from the set after only about fifty were produced. The final reason is the art. Even if only ten cards of someone are made, but those cards are crude, with blurry pictures, cheap stock, and no stats or info, then no one will want these cards. They are then considered worthless. In other words, the cards uses, which would include hedonism, memory provocation and admiration, are only factors. They do not solely determine the value of the card. Supply is a factor of primary importance.

Unfortunately, this discussion on worth has overlooked some details. A tangible object's worth is generally measured in currency, or even in a bartering value, but non-tangible items have been neglected, and they shed a lot of light on the opposite side's response. The value of something as described above leaves no room for non-tangible items. If something--an idea, a thought, a concept, or a rule--does not have market value, then according to this, it would have no worth. This is obviously not true. Concepts and ideas certainly have a value to us, and yet ideas have virtually a limitless supply. A good idea or rule is measured by the amount of help given to the amount of people. The only supply factor involved in this would be the amount of people involved in knowing this concept, or how new the concept is.

If a policy is such a secret that we must pay someone in order for him to use it for our behalf, then it is marketable and agrees with what was previously argued. If, however, the policy is not a secret but instead is an open option, then its value is strictly pragmatic, judged only by what it can do. The best ideas are those which have survived the longest. If an idea is proved to be the most worthy, it will last. If it works better, it is remembered. Only the best working ideas remain in the Darwinism of ideas.

For instance, examine the concept of taxes. The idea that a little bit of money given by everyone to make a central group wealthier is a brilliant premise. Since its origin, it has been copied thousands of times in thousands of lands.

Policies for other ways of life work in the same manner. The simplicity of "Time Out," combined with its effectiveness, keeps the policy in continual use in day care centers, kindergartens, and homes across the globe.

An additional example is that of first aid. This invaluable information is free and can be accessed most anywhere. It is in large supply. Nevertheless, its worth is immeasurable.

It might seem as though these illustrations comprise only a small group of exceptions and hence do not serve as a good rebuttal to the initial argument. Yet to accept this denies the shared Jewish and Japanese belief that teaching someone how to provide for himself is a higher form of charity than giving him money. The knowledge of how to provide for oneself, even if assumed not to be a secret, is immeasurable in price. The worth of these ideas, which consequently outvalue tangible goods, are based entirely on their uses. If an idea is useless, then it is worthless as well. Supply is not really a factor. If a brilliant method of speeding up slide rule use is created, the idea is both useless and consequently worthless. If, however, someone finds some vague additional use for it, then the idea will have some merit which will give it worth. However, this is only due to its newly found use.

For objects that one can see and purchase, or services that can be routinely performed, the value or worth is based not only on use, but also on supply as well. For the more valuable aspects of life, this does not hold true. A concept or idea is worth only its pragmatic value. 1,492 words