Schroder sq and the new talea

Atmasphere, whether roman dominance was a positive force in cultural development, the forming of nations and the concept of the modern state as we know it today is not the matter. I was only referring to the superior inherent ( read: superior material, superior craftsmanship, superior concept as a whole ) quality of the roman gladius made from that certain material and by that small tribe and their talented ironsmiths.
I just tried to explain what inherent quality and value might be - I see that I won't succeed, as we all are way too much already part of thinking in market terms and their automatisms.

Mosin, these two concepts are in discussion since about 237 years now. They are distinctive different. You will find tons of essays and informations about it in literature.

Kostas_1, good morning.
Oxygen to humans is not of an assigned "value" - it is (even in market terms...) an indispensable "need". As such, "value" can't be the right term in the context.
Whether we live in a democracy or just the pale shadow of one ( but our bias has long adjusted to reality ..) is yet another question...;-) ....

Dear all, When Raul posted his 'the best of the best carts'
there was much confusion, negation, explanation,etc . If I
remember well 'the argument' against such a pronouncement was: one can not value or judge a cart in isolotation. To use Dertonarms expression 'team': cart and tonenarm are a
'team' or 'combo'.Ie one needs two for the tango.
We have in casu essentialy the same question but 'disquised' in a different description: wich is the best of the best 3-4 or 5 tonearms? BTW I assume that there
is consensus about this 'fact': there is no universal tonearm (yet). But it may be the case that we all want 'the best tonearm' there is.
Regards,

Dgarretson, I also thought about classical ecomicis in this
context but 'the old one'. Smith, Ricardo, Marx, etc. They
made the distinction between 'value in use' versus 'exchange value'. The so called 'theorys of value'
were all over the place then. Ricardo was the only one who
was searching for the 'absolute measure of value'. His 'corn model'of economic process is still the best 'reduction'(of complexity) that I know of. Ie the whole process is explained in corn terms. Back then the usual explanation of the difference was: water and air have
tremendous 'use value' but no 'exchange value'. No idea if this helps but to my mind we should avoid mixing expressions like 'valuation', 'desription' and 'prescription'. Dertonarm uses obviously 'physicist'
approach: the objects have the qualitys they have, we can discovere them but we can not ascribe to them qualitys they
dont have. But this should be put it seems to me in dscriptiv terms and not in terms of valuation. Valuation without a subject who values is a strange construction.
Marx stated this in the context of 'use value' like this:
the humans value those things because they need them but to
a sheep it may look very strange that his 'value'consist in
the fact that he is edible by humans.

Regards,