Value: What Determines It?

I started thinking about this topic when I heard someone, as we all have probably countless times, commenting on the value of a musician's music. He observed that Taylor Swift's music was the trashiest trash to ever manifest itself upon this earth, named just about every criticism that could be levied against her music, and stated plainly that her music had no value and the fact that she was rich because of it was a stain upon humanity. That's the summary, in fewer words and less profane language. Everyone else in the room agreed with him. I disagreed, which made me unpopular for the rest of the day, but only really with the last part of what he said.

You see this all the time throughout your life. You probably see it here with your friends. They'll point out that another Steemit user's posts don't deserve the attention they're getting, either arguing that their own work is better or that the works they follow are far more deserving but are rewarded less.

So, let's break this down a little first. There are two primary distinctions that need to be made before determining value:

Value to the Individual:
This is the easy one. What is valuable to you is ultimately isolated entirely within your mind. Others may influence, make arguments for or against criteria by which you personally determine what is valuable to you, but there is no collective element to the judgment itself. You don't like Taylor Swift's music. You think pickled pig's feet taste great. You think Chevy makes the best cars. You think Mario is the best game series ever made. These are personal value judgments. These can be debated, of course, but you own this assessment of value. No one else. Those who like to put philosophical labels on things might refer to this as "aesthetic preference".

"I like the taste of pickled pig's feet" VS "Pickled pig's feet is a valuable food"

That's why it's not to be conflated with...

Overall Value:
This is the challenging one for some. Does Taylor Swift deserve to be rich? That's not up to one individual. Your hate of her music isn't enough, even if you convince a few of your friends to agree with you wholeheartedly. The truth of the matter is enough people out there love Taylor Swift's music, buy her albums, buy tickets to her concerts, request her songs on the radio, etc, that she she is one of the highest paid entertainers in the business. This would seem to offer pretty solid evidence that Taylor Swift's music is indeed of high value.

Price as an Indicator of Value:
This is where economics and philosophy have overlap. Since value is never the same to a group, large or small, between groups, to the individual, or even to the same individual in different circumstances, a persistent objective value cannot be determined. I could easily turn this into a criticism of economic strategies that attempt to create fixed, persistent pricing for goods and services, and why they inevitably collapse but that's almost purely economics, encroaching on politics; a discussion for another time when I hate myself more than I do at the moment.

Summary:
When price functions as an amoral act of nature, free of force, there doesn't appear to be any better indicator of value in existence whether it be for goods, services, ideas, etc. The market will not factor in your ego, and only considers individual determination of value insofar as that individual's contribution to the overall market whole. If the market consists of a billion consumers, your value vote counts as one billionth of the determination. Tough pill for some to swallow.

You will often see people languish over this. The world just isn't ready for their great ideas, people don't recognize good writing like theirs anymore, the general public must be stupid for not buying their innovative product. They are one hundred percent to be credited for their successes, and external forces are one hundred percent responsible for their failures. That's not to say that any of these claims can't be partially true, just to head off the "not all" argument. I believe we have all fallen into this way of thinking at some point in our lives, and it's always a great temptation.

Final Point:
I've found that what helps me avoid erroneously assessing my own value is to avoid assessing it at all. I will of course evaluate my own preferences, and what is valuable to me as an individual, but avoid a judgment of the overall value of my own ideas, quality of my writing, etc. I submit to the determination of the market. If my writing receives praise and/or I make money from it, I will continue to write and accept that determination. If it is not liked, and I never make a cent, I can safely assume that my writing does not have real value and I will seek to busy myself with something else where I have seen greater evidence of value. When I see others succeed in something I'm also working hard at, I try not to compare myself to them. Instead, I try to dissect their work and determine what the catalyst was for their success, what people find valuable about it. This gives me a sort of permission to disconnect from my own ideas and work that allows me to accept criticism of it without taking it personally or resisting change.

Disclaimer:
I am not a real philosopher, nor am I an economist. I have a love and a passion for the subjects, and have spent many hours studying them, but I have no degree or certification to demonstrate credibility to you. Take what I say with a grain of salt. Amateur hour, as I like to call it.

Criticisms, as always, are welcome and appreciated.