What's the use of TNTs?
When you have TNTs, or 'trust network tokens,' why continue to use silly NFTs?
The Evolution of the Concept of 'Use Value' in Economic Theory: TNT-Bank Art-Shares
Joseph Mark Haykov
January 31, 2024
Abstract
This paper provides a historical analysis of the 'use value' concept, a fundamental aspect of economic theory that represents the subjective benefits derived from using a product or service. Originating in ancient Greek philosophy and prominently featured in Karl Marx's 'Das Kapital,' the concept of use value has evolved significantly, transitioning from a philosophical notion to a key component in mathematical economics. We examine its interpretations and applications through the works of influential economists like Aristotle, Adam Smith, and David Ricardo, and explore its incorporation into contemporary economic theories, emphasizing its continued importance in understanding economic dynamics.
Additionally, the paper investigates the practical implementation of these theories in applied mathematical economics, particularly focusing on the principle of exclusion in conjunction with use value theory. This is exemplified by artists issuing digital art-share TNT tokens to restrict non-paying clients from accessing their artworks' use value, thereby aiming to enhance the exchange value of the art in the market. This strategy demonstrates a modern application of classic economic theory, highlighting the persistent relevance of these ideas.
Introduction
The interplay between an object's inherent utility ('use value') and its market price ('exchange value') has long been a central theme in economic theory, with roots tracing back to ancient Greek philosophy. Aristotle, in his seminal works "Nicomachean Ethics" and "Politics," was among the first to articulate this distinction. He emphasized the natural use value of everyday items, such as shoes, contrasting it with their trade value. This differentiation laid a foundational stone in economic thought.
Classical economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo further explored this crucial distinction in the 18th and 19th centuries. Smith's diamond-water paradox, as presented in "The Wealth of Nations," illustrated the contradiction between the values of essential, yet abundant, water and non-essential, yet scarce, diamonds. This paradox underscored the inherent conflict between 'use value' and 'exchange value,' setting the stage for more complex economic theories. Ricardo, in his "Principles of Political Economy and Taxation," extended the discussion beyond mere market prices to explore the intrinsic utility of commodities.
Karl Marx, in 'Das Kapital,' significantly expanded upon earlier economic theories by introducing the concept of surplus value, a fundamental aspect of his critique of capitalist systems. Marx defined surplus value for the producer as the difference between the exchange value of a product (for example, the market price at which the manufacturer sells its product) and its total production costs, which include labor, raw materials, administrative, and overhead expenses. However, Marx did not explicitly account for the risk-adjusted cost of capital and various other expenses, such as advertising. By including these elements in the analysis, we can align the concept of surplus value with the contemporary understanding of producer surplus — or economic profit. In modern terms, surplus value for a producer is known as producer surplus and represents the excess value a firm generates over its comprehensive cost of production, emphasizing the risk-adjusted opportunity cost of capital.
Marx aimed to expose the dynamics of capitalist production, particularly the extraction of surplus value from labor. He argued that surplus value represents the additional wealth created by workers but expropriated by employers or capitalists, portraying this process as inherently exploitative. This perspective is a critical part of his broader critique of capitalism, highlighting the disparity between the value produced by labor and the compensation received.
Contemporary economic concepts such as agency costs and economic rents describe similar practices of unearned wealth extraction. Historical Soviet propaganda, for example, depicted capitalist employers as economic parasites. This portrayal is rooted in the biblical proverb 'he who does not work, shall not eat,' echoed by Vladimir Lenin. In this context, economic parasites are individuals who consume goods and services produced by others, without contributing to their creation or enhancement. However, it's important to note that the ability to obtain unearned wealth, as exemplified by economic rents and agency costs, is a topic extensively researched outside of Marxism. Modern economics models these phenomena in the context of market inefficiencies, focusing on pragmatic solutions rather than solely criticizing class struggle or exploitation.
Economists Gordon Tullock and James Buchanan Jr., the latter a Nobel Prize laureate in 1986, have extensively explored the concept of 'rent-seeking' within public choice theory. They delve into how 'rent-seekers'—entities like corporations or individuals—employ strategies such as government lobbying to extract unearned wealth without contributing to productivity. This behavior aligns with the Soviet characterization of capitalists as parasites, portraying them as consuming what they did not produce. According to public choice theory, rent seekers are similarly able to consume goods and services they did not help produce, due to their ability to earn wealth through political influence and manipulation of public policy, without enhancing overall productivity.
Economic parasites, or rent-seekers, as formally defined by Gordon Tullock, are individuals or entities aiming to acquire unearned wealth without making a reciprocal contribution to productivity. The concept of economic parasitism, where individuals consume goods and services without producing anything of value in exchange, encompasses a wide spectrum of activities, ranging from overt methods such as theft, fraud, and robbery, to more nuanced mechanisms like the extraction of economic rents through lobbying. Economic rents specifically refer to gains that exceed those possible in a purely competitive market environment.
In the context of corporate governance, the occurrence of agency costs is yet another well-documented example of economic parasitism. These costs arise when managers act in their own interest, rather than prioritizing the interests of shareholders, thereby extracting wealth from the latter. A typical instance is when a CEO makes decisions aimed at boosting short-term profits — thereby securing increased bonuses — at the cost of the long-term health of the company. This behavior ultimately results in shareholders bearing the brunt of the long-term consequences.
Michael C. Jensen and William H. Meckling's 'Theory of the Firm' (1976) explores mechanisms for mitigating agency costs, illuminating their nature and proposing strategies to reduce inefficiencies within firms. For instance, numerous well-known CEOs have been involved in misappropriating funds from their shareholders, a clear manifestation of agency costs. Simultaneously, many of these individuals also partake in rent-seeking behaviors, lobbying the government for favorable regulations. An example is the agribusiness sector, where CEOs have actively lobbied to restrict the sale of raw milk by smaller competitors, leveraging their influence to shape regulations to their advantage. This convergence of agency costs and rent-seeking behavior reveals a troubling pattern where corporate leaders, behaving as economic parasites, adversely affect their shareholders while concurrently attempting to manipulate government policies for their own competitive advantage.
The concept of wealth extraction, with deep historical roots, garnered significant attention during Karl Marx's era. In light of the prevalent rent-seeking behavior and agency costs today, it seems unlikely that economic parasites would spare employees from their exploitative tactics. The widespread poverty among workers during Marx's time implies that managing agents were likely extracting surplus value on behalf of the idle bourgeoisie, affecting both workers and customers. Additionally, it is plausible to suggest that these agents were also engaging in embezzlement, an act now recognized as part of agency costs. This historical view highlights a continuous cycle of wealth accumulation, driven by asymmetric information, which adversely impacts both labor and capital. This cycle disproportionately benefits managing agents equipped with superior trade knowledge, allowing them to exploit others through fraudulent activities. These agents, armed with their informational edge, are capable of exploiting not only investors and labor but also their customers.
Distinguishing between Karl Marx's economic theories and his political ideologies is crucial for a nuanced understanding of his legacy. While Marx's political ideas significantly influenced the development of communist regimes, directly attributing the actions of these regimes to his economic theories oversimplifies the intricate socio-political dynamics that emerged after his era. A comprehensive understanding of Marx's legacy requires differentiating his economic analysis, as detailed in 'Das Kapital,' from his political ideologies outlined in the 'Communist Manifesto.' While Marx's proposals in the 'Communist Manifesto' for addressing unearned wealth extraction have faced challenges in real-world implementation, this does not imply that economic parasitism cannot be reduced. For example, the strategies for reducing agency costs proposed by Jensen and Meckling have demonstrated practical effectiveness. Nevertheless, the real-world application of communism, heavily influenced by Marx's political thought, has led to failures and catastrophic outcomes, such as the famine-induced hardships in Ukraine during Soviet rule.
Karl Marx's "Das Kapital" stands as a landmark critique of capitalist systems, scrutinizing aspects of parasitism and inherent inefficiencies. Marx's argument that these features are not only unjust but also fundamentally inefficient resonates with contemporary issues, such as agency costs in corporate governance. The phenomenon of CEOs extracting wealth from both their employers and the public through economic rents, as illustrated in the NBC News article, echoes Marx's concerns about the potential exploitation of labor in capitalist systems.
For those seeking practical solutions to combat wealth inequality and economic parasitism, the work of Jensen and Meckling offers a noteworthy alternative to communist ideologies, distinguished by its proven effectiveness in real-world scenarios. Their theories, particularly concerning the reduction of agency costs, have demonstrated considerable success in practical applications. Delving into and applying the principles laid out in their seminal works, such as 'The Nature of Man,' can yield crucial insights for boosting efficiency and countering economic parasitism across various sectors. Central to their approach is the alignment of interests between managers and shareholders, aimed at minimizing conflicts of interest and enhancing both transparency and accountability in corporate governance. Such measures are essential in reducing asymmetric information, a critical step towards addressing some of the systemic issues that perpetuate economic inequality.
Recognizing the phenomenon of unearned wealth extraction is crucial, but simply identifying this issue does not equate to offering a viable solution. Approaches that fail to address the complexities of economic systems can be counterproductive, similar to how bloodletting with leeches often worsened patients' conditions. Therefore, it's imperative to adopt realistic, evidence-based strategies to effectively tackle economic inefficiency and wealth disparity. These strategies should be grounded in a thorough understanding of market dynamics and organizational behavior.
However, the enduring relevance of theoretical foundations in economics should not be overlooked. For instance, Karl Marx’s concept of surplus value remains a key concept in mainstream mathematical economics, providing insights into the dynamics of free trade efficiency. This concept illustrates the ongoing interplay between theoretical perspectives and practical economic analysis.
In contemporary mathematical welfare economics, the concept of surplus value plays a central role. The Arrow-Debreu model, depicting an ideal market scenario characterized by complete competition and comprehensive markets, focuses on Pareto efficiency. According to the first theorem of welfare economics, Pareto efficiency is theoretically achievable under conditions of perfect competition and the absence of externalities. In this context, Pareto-improving free trade over time approaches an economically optimal “Pareto-efficient” outcome, a state of equilibrium referred to as Pareto optimality. This ideal state is marked by efficient producers and maximized labor productivity.
In a scenario of only voluntary exchange, without making any additional perfect market assumptions, the motivation for both parties, buyer and seller, to engage in a mutually beneficial, Pareto-improving free trade hinges on each counterparty perceiving surplus value in the transaction. This perception is fundamental, as no rational individual would willingly partake in a commercial exchange without recognizing some form of benefit. In ideal market scenarios, epitomized by the Arrow-Debreu model, transactions are predicated on symmetric information. This condition theoretically leads to increased overall welfare, as each party perceives and gains a benefit, facilitating efficient resource allocation and value maximization in the market.
Indeed, real-world market transactions often deviate from the idealized conditions, particularly in cases of information asymmetry. A classic example is a fraudulent car dealer taking advantage of an uninformed client, which contravenes the symmetric information assumption fundamental to models like the Arrow-Debreu model. In such scenarios, the anticipated use value before the transaction (ex ante) can significantly differ from the actual use value realized after the transaction (ex post). This discrepancy highlights the subjective nature of use value in market dealings.
The divergence between ex ante and ex post use value, especially when influenced by fraud, underscores the challenges in accurately gauging use value within market transactions. It demonstrates how information asymmetry can lead to market inefficiencies and suboptimal outcomes. In the case of the fraudulent car dealer, the client's perceived value of the car before purchase (ex ante) is based on incomplete or false information, leading to a decision that may not align with their actual experience (ex post). This situation illustrates a fundamental flaw in market transactions when key conditions of the ideal model, like symmetric information, are not met, resulting in economic inefficiencies and potential consumer exploitation.
Indeed, the importance of accurate information and transparency in achieving fair and efficient market outcomes cannot be overstated. These factors are critical in helping consumers make informed decisions, highlighting the necessity for full disclosure and information symmetry to ensure fairness in trade. However, the implementation of regulatory oversight often comes with substantial costs. These costs not only include the inherent expenses of regulation but also the more significant inefficiencies that frequently accompany any form of regulation, such as agency costs and economic rents that emerge as unintended consequences.
While regulation may seem beneficial in theory, the associated costs suggest that it is generally best avoided in reality, whenever possible. This perspective is especially relevant considering the emergence of free market solutions that can mitigate some of the issues regulation aims to address. For instance, services like CarFax reports have made it more difficult for used car dealers to commit fraud. These market-driven solutions can often provide effective alternatives to regulation, addressing issues of information asymmetry and consumer protection without the additional burdens of regulatory costs and inefficiencies.
In the realm of a voluntary free-market commercial transaction, surplus value refers to the marginal subjective utility gained by each party involved. This value represents the net difference between the use value – the intrinsic utility or satisfaction derived from a good or service – and the exchange value – the market price at which the good or service is obtained. Essentially, this disparity embodies the gain in subjective utility for each counterparty in a free market trade, encompassing both consumer surplus and producer surplus.
Consumer surplus is the additional value consumers realize when they pay a price that is less than their maximum willingness to pay for a product. For instance, if a consumer is prepared to pay $100 for a product but actually purchases it for $80, the consumer surplus is $20. Conversely, producer surplus is the extra value that producers earn over their risk-adjusted cost of capital, representing the profit margin after all costs and risks are accounted for. As an example, if the total cost for a producer to create a product is $60, and they sell it for $80, their producer surplus is $20.
These concepts of surplus value underscore the mutual benefits inherent in trade within a free market. Both consumers and producers stand to gain additional value from transactions, illustrating a fundamental principle that drives market dynamics. This mutual benefit is a cornerstone of free-market economics, highlighting the efficiency and value creation that such markets can foster.
Indeed, while Pareto optimality serves as an important marker of efficient resource allocation in economic theory, its limitations in addressing fairness and equity are significant. This concept, focusing exclusively on efficiency, neglects disparities in the initial distribution of resources, creating a situation where improving the welfare of one individual is not possible without worsening the welfare of another, regardless of their initial economic positions. This raises valid concerns about its utility in ensuring equitable outcomes.
However, even when we set aside the issue of fairness and narrow our focus exclusively to efficiency, it becomes evident that achieving Pareto efficiency in real-world scenarios is an exceptionally daunting endeavor. Real-world economies encounter numerous impediments to reaching this level of efficiency, primarily due to deviations from the ideal conditions outlined in models like the Arrow-Debreu model.
While we have discussed the violations of assumptions like symmetric information, it's important to note that even more fundamental assumptions, such as that of voluntary exchange, are frequently and extensively violated in real-world economies. These violations of basic economic assumptions are a significant source of economic inefficiencies and challenges.
One poignant example is the economic situation in Haiti. Sharing an island with the Dominican Republic, Haiti's significantly lower per capita GDP highlights the impact of deviating from essential economic principles. This divergence is not just about information asymmetry but extends to the very foundational assumption of voluntary exchange. In many cases, economic transactions are not entirely voluntary, especially in environments where economic parasitism, in forms such as theft, robbery, and street criminality, is prevalent. These activities lead to involuntary exchanges and, consequently, significant economic inefficiencies.
The situation in Haiti, contrasted with that of the Dominican Republic, exemplifies how deviations from the principles of voluntary exchange and information symmetry can lead to starkly different economic outcomes. The prevalence of economic parasitism, which includes both white-collar crimes like fraud and more overt criminal activities like theft and extortion, disrupts the efficient functioning of markets. These disruptions manifest in various ways, one of which is the impact on a country's GDP. It reflects how involuntary exchanges and economic inefficiencies stemming from these activities can significantly hinder a nation's economic progress and development.
Therefore, while Pareto efficiency offers a theoretical framework for understanding optimal resource allocation, the realities of the real world, with its myriad deviations from ideal conditions, pose significant challenges to achieving such efficiency. The case of Haiti underscores the need for an economic analysis that considers these real-world complexities and the various factors that impede the attainment of ideal economic efficiency.
Additionally, the prevalence of rent-seeking behaviors and substantial agency costs, even in political systems perceived as less corrupt, further complicate the achievement of Pareto efficiency in practice. Despite these challenges, the theory of Pareto optimality remains extremely useful. It provides a framework to model economic efficiency by measuring how real-world economic situations diverge from the idealized market conditions posited by models like Arrow-Debreu.
Economic parasitism is a widespread issue, prominently seen in the routine involvement of law enforcement in extortion and profit-skimming from politically unconnected businesses across the former Soviet Union countries. This type of unearned wealth extraction, notably through the bribe-taking actions of the 'siloviki', represents more than just an ethical dilemma; it has direct, negative economic impacts. Practices like these are a key factor contributing to lower per capita GDP, a trend clearly observable in Russia. Comparing Russia's real GDP per capita with that of countries like Ireland reveals a significant disparity, underscoring the need for a detailed analysis to understand the full scope and ramifications of this difference. Such a comparison brings to light the complexities involved in achieving Pareto efficiency in actual economic scenarios, where elements like information asymmetry, involuntary exchanges, and rent-seeking behavior play critical roles in shaping economic outcomes.
In this introduction, we openly acknowledge the inherent limitations of mathematical economics. Our detailed, albeit somewhat lugubrious, journey through this introduction serves a singular purpose: to illustrate a fundamental challenge within the discipline of applied mathematics, especially as seen in mathematical economics. The key issue lies in the fact that any inaccurate assumption can quickly render a theory an inadequate empirical representation of reality. However, our objective is to show that when mathematical economics is applied with judicious care and a deliberate avoidance of unrealistic assumptions, it can predict real-world consumer behavior with remarkable precision and accuracy. We argue that under certain well-defined conditions, which include robust and realistic modeling assumptions, mathematical economics can attain a level of predictive power that, while not directly comparable, is akin in efficacy to that found in physics. This analogy is not to equate the two fields, but to highlight our confidence in the ability of mathematical economics to yield insightful and precise analyses of consumer behaviors and market dynamics. We believe that with well-grounded and thoughtfully considered assumptions, mathematical economics is capable of offering deep insights into the intricacies of economic phenomena.
Valuing Access: The Dynamics of Use Value, Exchange Value, and Exclusion in Modern Economics
Within the realm of mathematical economics, particularly in welfare economics, the concept of 'use value' is pivotal. It denotes the subjective benefits an end-user obtains from a product or service. This inherently subjective notion varies significantly among individuals, presenting challenges in quantification or direct modeling. For instance, it's impractical to precisely quantify the 'utils' one gains from entering an air-conditioned room on a hot day – this is generally not a quantifiable consideration. However, consumers constantly engage in cost-benefit analyses, balancing the expected use value of a product or service against its real-world economic cost or exchange value.
From an individual consumer's perspective, the assessment of exchange value often involves a subjective calculation based on the time and effort required to earn the wages necessary for the purchase. Objectively, however, exchange value is typically represented by the market price of the item. This mental cost-benefit analysis, which consumers perform prior to making a purchase, entails a comparison between the anticipated use value of an item and its exchange value, as indicated by its market price and in relation to the consumer's wages. Such an evaluation is a crucial aspect of consumer decision-making, assisting them in effectively navigating the market and making informed purchasing decisions.
In this economic framework, while the use value represents a subjective benefit for the consumer, the exchange value or market value signifies the subjective cost of acquiring this use value. It encompasses the financial and other resources expended to obtain goods and services, which then need replenishment through time spent working. Unlike 'use value,' 'exchange value' is more straightforward to quantify, as it is mirrored in quoted or traded market prices.
The concept of surplus value in commercial transactions emerges from the gap between use and exchange values. This surplus represents the extra benefit or utility that the consumer perceives beyond the market price of the goods or services. In economic terms, this is conceptualized as 'consumer surplus,' an attempt to quantify the gap between the total amount a consumer is willing to pay (indicative of their perceived use value) and the actual amount paid (the exchange value).
Behavioral mathematical economics delves into the intricate ways in which psychological, cognitive, emotional, cultural, and social factors shape economic decision-making, including evaluations of 'use value.' These perspectives are vital for comprehending why individuals may ascribe higher value to certain goods or services than their market prices suggest, thereby illuminating the multifaceted nature of human preferences in economic contexts. This emerging field represents a novel branch of applied mathematics, wherein principles of mathematical economics are directly applied to human behavior.
However, the precision and validity of these applications hinge on the accuracy and completeness of the underlying assumptions. As long as these assumptions are rigorously maintained, and provided that no critical assumptions are overlooked, the resultant conclusions are expected to be robust. This approach echoes a fundamental principle highlighted in our introduction: applied mathematics, much like algebra, achieves its accuracy through logical coherence and the integrity of its assumptions. Therefore, in behavioral mathematical economics, the rigor of these assumptions is paramount to deriving conclusions that accurately reflect the complexities of human behavior in economic scenarios.
Producers frequently implement the principle of exclusion as a strategy to monetize the use value of their labor or products. This principle operates on the understanding that consumers are generally unwilling to pay for something that is available to them for free. Therefore, by limiting access to their products or services, producers create a scenario where only paying customers can gain access. This approach enables producers to capture the economic value of their offerings, thereby driving revenue generation. The principle of exclusion is particularly salient in the digital economy. Here, content providers often adopt exclusionary strategies like subscription models to effectively monetize their digital content.
The Zeroth Axiom of Behavioral Mathematical Economics: It is posited as self-evidently true that the exchange value of a product is intrinsically linked to the owner's ability to prevent non-paying individuals from accessing its use value for free. In the absence of this ability, the market value of a product or service is likely to diminish significantly. This decline occurs because consumers typically have little incentive to pay for what they can access at no cost. Therefore, controlling access to the use value is a key determinant in sustaining and realizing a product's exchange value in the market.
Invariably, across various industries, market value fundamentally depends on the ability to restrict access and usage, a key requirement for maintaining exclusivity. This principle of exclusion, akin to the first law of thermodynamics in physics, is a core tenet in mathematical economics, consistently upheld in real-world economies as underscored by Axiom Zero. Its application is universal, even in contexts like charitable donations, where the act of giving to one entity implicitly excludes others from receiving those same resources.
A vivid illustration of this principle can be observed in religious donations. For instance, contributions made to a Buddhist monk at a temple are exclusive to that religious context. Buddhism, in this scenario, represents the 'product,' and the donations are inherently earmarked for that specific purpose. Attempting to redirect these donations elsewhere would be a direct violation of the principle of exclusion, demonstrating its unwavering application even in seemingly altruistic settings. This principle thus remains an inviolable aspect of value determination and preservation across diverse sectors and scenarios.
The principle of exclusion plays a pivotal role in how a software company upholds its product's market value. By limiting usage to paying customers, often enforced through intellectual property rights, the company effectively prevents value erosion due to unauthorized access. This strategy exemplifies the principle's importance in preserving market value by controlling access.
Similarly, in the real estate sector, the value of a property is closely tied to the owner's ability to regulate who can access it. For instance, the failure to evict non-paying squatters not only hinders potential rental revenue but also significantly reduces the property's exchange value. These situations underscore the principle of exclusion's critical role in maintaining market value. Whether it's software, real estate, or other industries, controlling access is an essential strategy for preserving the economic worth of goods and services. This principle of exclusion, therefore, is an integral and unassailable factor in the determination and preservation of market value across diverse sectors.
The imperative for effective exclusion strategies is a cornerstone in ensuring the financial sustainability of assets and plays a pivotal role in the broader functioning of market economies. These strategies are not just about protecting individual asset values; they are integral to the efficient allocation of resources and have a profound impact on overall market dynamics. By effectively regulating access to assets, exclusion strategies serve as key mechanisms in determining their market value, thereby influencing how resources are distributed and utilized across the market. This underlines their fundamental significance in shaping both the stability of individual financial ventures and the health of market economies at large.
The principle of exclusion transcends mere physical barriers, extending into the realm of consumer perception, particularly regarding exclusivity. Often driven by limited availability, this perceived exclusivity can significantly enhance a product's value, especially when its uniqueness contributes to its subjective use value. For instance, ownership of exclusive items like renowned artwork is not only about possessing a valuable piece but also about the opportunity to flaunt wealth and cultural sophistication. This exclusivity in ownership imbues these items with a 'wealth flaunting' use value, effectively elevating the owner’s social status. It's this aspect of exclusivity, the ability to signal status and distinction, that often underpins the elevated market value of such products. In essence, the principle of exclusion operates not only by limiting access but also by crafting an aura of exclusivity that enhances both the perceived and actual value of an asset.
In societies across the globe, it is the relative ranking of wealth, rather than its absolute value, that invariably dictates social dominance. Wealth is perceived always and everywhere in relative terms; its significance is derived from how it compares to that of others. As a result, the ability to exclude others becomes a pivotal factor in deriving use value from the display of wealth, which predominantly acts as a signal of social status.
This dynamic underscores how the pursuit of perceived exclusivity and social distinction profoundly influences economic behavior and molds societal values. To assert social dominance, individuals must not only demonstrate their wealth but also its superiority over others'. It's this comparative aspect that is crucial – social status is measured against the purchasing power of others. The actual items used for this comparison are secondary, whether they are rare collectibles, currency, real estate, stocks, or any other asset. The core of achieving a higher status in this social hierarchy is to possess more than others, regardless of the specific nature of those possessions.
Consequently, the ability to restrict access, or exclude others, becomes an integral part of the use value associated with displaying wealth for signaling social status. This capacity to exclude, thereby ensuring the rarity and uniqueness of one's possessions, is what enhances their value in the context of social hierarchy and competition.
Technological advancements, exemplified by open-source software, have adapted these traditional economic principles to fit the digital age. Open-source software, which thrives on cooperative behavior and community contributions, still often turns to the principle of exclusion for its monetization strategies. For instance, companies may offer exclusive support services to paying customers or impose charges for commercial usage, as demonstrated by software like the Qt library.
In conclusion, a comprehensive understanding and strategic application of the concepts of 'use value' and the principle of exclusion are vital for maximizing the economic potential of products or services in the contemporary market. By acknowledging the necessity of restricting access to paying customers, producers can craft business models and pricing strategies that bolster profitability and market success. Effectively balancing these economic principles is crucial in adapting to the evolving economic landscapes and staying ahead in forecasting future trends.
The Influence of the Principle of Exclusion on Exchange Value: The First Axiom of Behavioral Economics
This axiom asserts that the exchange value, or market price, of a product is primarily determined by its inherent use value, reflecting the subjective benefits it offers consumers. For example, an airplane's higher market value compared to a car, and a car's over a bicycle, is largely due to their different levels of use value.
However, assessing a product's market worth involves more than just its use value. The producer's ability to enforce the principle of exclusion is equally critical. This principle, which entails restricting unauthorized access or usage, is fundamental in maintaining a product's exclusivity and rarity, thereby significantly influencing its market value. Effective control over access aligns the market value with the perceived use value, leading to optimized economic returns.
In sectors like art, luxury goods, and high-end fashion, a primary method of applying the principle of exclusion is through the issuance of verifiable certificates of authenticity. These certificates are instrumental in distinguishing authentic products from replicas, greatly influencing their perceived and actual market prices. In the art world, a painting’s value depends on both its aesthetic appeal and verified authenticity, often established through a documented historical chain of ownership essential for proving provenance. While a skillfully executed replica of a Monet painting may resemble the original and hold some value, an authenticated original, with clear provenance, can fetch millions at auction houses.
The art world also presents a notable case regarding the color degradation of impressionist paintings. Color-corrected replicas, despite offering a superior visual experience, do not command high prices compared to the faded originals. This highlights the complex interplay between authenticity, historical value, and artistic merit, extending into the broader luxury market. The limited number of authentic artworks drives their use value as a tool for flaunting relative wealth, allowing owners to exhibit social dominance. Original works, with their unique history and lineage, possess an irreplaceable value that transcends their physical appearance, symbolizing wealth and cultural sophistication.
In contrast, color-corrected replicas, despite their fidelity to the artists' original visions, lack market value due to their absence of uniqueness, which is essential for exclusivity. It is the authenticity and historical significance of the originals that command higher market values, supported by the principle of exclusion emphasizing unique ownership rights and controlled scarcity.
Similar patterns are observed in other industries. In the digital world, software and content safeguarded against unauthorized duplication command higher prices. In pharmaceuticals, patented drugs maintain high market values due to exclusive rights. While enforcing exclusion in the digital realm faces challenges like piracy and unauthorized sharing, controlling access remains a key factor in determining a product's market value.
In conclusion, the principle of exclusion is crucial in economic transactions, significantly influencing a product's exchange value. Producers and marketers must adeptly apply this principle to shape consumer perception and demand, optimize exchange value, and remain adaptable in the face of technological and global market trends.
The Diamond-Water Paradox and the Principle of Exclusion: A Deep Dive into Value and Perception
The Diamond-Water Paradox presents a classic conundrum in economics, effectively illustrating the influence of the Principle of Exclusion on market value. This paradox contrasts the low exchange value of water — indispensable for life and abundant in use value — with the high exchange value of diamonds, which, while less essential, are perceived as rare and exclusive.
At the heart of this paradox is the relative abundance of water, making it difficult to impose exclusivity, as opposed to the perceived scarcity and cultivated exclusivity of diamonds. Diamond companies, such as DeBeers, have masterfully branded diamonds as symbols of wealth and eternal love. This strategic positioning has transformed diamonds into sought-after commodities within the market, allowing them to command high prices. The Diamond-Water Paradox thus underscores the complex interplay between intrinsic utility, perceived scarcity, and the ability to enforce exclusion, all of which profoundly shape a product's market value.
In stark contrast to water's indispensable role in sustaining life, diamonds derive much of their subjective use value from their perceived status as symbols of wealth and romance. Companies like DeBeers have been instrumental in shaping this perception by tightly controlling the diamond supply and promoting the notion that diamonds embody romantic commitment. Consequently, the cost of a diamond often becomes a metric in a woman's subjective assessment of her partner's affection and his ability to provide a tangible, exclusive symbol of his love.
This dynamic showcases a profound aspect of the Principle of Exclusion: its capacity to markedly influence a commodity's market value, irrespective of its intrinsic practical utility. By manipulating supply and crafting a narrative of exclusivity and romance around diamonds, companies like DeBeers have effectively elevated the perceived use value of diamonds. This strategy transforms them from mere carbon crystals into coveted symbols of love and commitment, thereby significantly boosting their market value. This manipulation exemplifies how the Principle of Exclusion, when adeptly applied, can create and sustain high market value for a product, even in the absence of a corresponding practical use value.
This scenario underscores the critical role that marketing strategies and brand storytelling play in shaping consumer perceptions and determining the value of luxury items, such as diamonds. Central to this phenomenon is the Principle of Exclusion, which involves strategically enhancing a commodity's exchange value well beyond its practical use value. In the context of diamonds, their value as a symbol of wealth is relative, not absolute, hinging on both the controlled supply and the ability to exclude others from accessing this form of wealth display.
To enforce this exclusivity, mechanisms like certificates of authenticity are frequently utilized. These certificates serve to confirm the rarity and unique value of a diamond, reinforcing its status as a luxury item. By doing so, they not only underscore the Principle of Exclusion but also contribute to the perceived prestige and desirability of diamonds. Thus, the combination of strategic marketing and enforced exclusivity plays a pivotal role in elevating the perceived value of diamonds, transforming them into sought-after symbols of wealth and status.
In the world of artificial diamonds, the principle of exclusion takes on a unique form. Lab-created diamonds, which are molecularly identical to their natural counterparts, tend to be more affordable yet are often perceived as less valuable by consumers. This perception primarily stems from the notion of a limited supply of natural diamonds, a view that is further reinforced by certificates of authenticity that accompany them. Additionally, the tightly controlled distribution networks for natural diamonds amplify their perceived use value as a symbol of relative wealth.
This enhanced perceived value is then mirrored in their higher market prices, despite their molecular similarities to artificial diamonds. The diamond market, therefore, serves as a prime example of how perceptions of exclusivity, deeply rooted in history, culture, and strategic distribution, play a pivotal role in determining the economic value of products that are otherwise similar. It illustrates how the principle of exclusion, when applied through marketing narratives and controlled distribution, can significantly influence consumer perception and, consequently, the market value of a product.
This scenario is a clear demonstration of the principle of exclusion at work, showcasing a significant difference in market values between two molecularly identical commodities. Natural diamonds, often labeled as 'real-authentic-original,' fetch much higher prices compared to their artificial counterparts, despite being indistinguishable in all aspects except for their origin. This disparity in pricing, predominantly driven by perceptions of authenticity and rarity, accentuates the profound influence of the principle of exclusion on market valuation. The principle effectively elevates the value of natural diamonds by capitalizing on their perceived scarcity and authenticity, factors that are deeply ingrained in consumer perception. Consequently, this creates a distinct market differentiation, illustrating how the principle of exclusion can significantly sway the economic value of products that are otherwise identical in their physical attributes.
Certificates of authenticity play a crucial and extensive role in augmenting the perceived value of luxury items, particularly in the jewelry industry. These certificates substantially elevate the subjective use value of products like diamonds by affirming their 'original-rare-natural' attributes. This form of verification does more than just assure the buyer of the item's quality and rarity; it also empowers the owner to demonstrate their relative ranking in terms of purchasing power. Owning a luxury item with a verified certificate of authenticity becomes a powerful tool in signaling social status and exclusivity. It is not merely the physical attributes of the item that convey value, but also the prestige and distinction associated with its authenticated rarity and originality. Such practices are central to the dynamics of social status assertion, leveraging the principle of exclusion to differentiate and elevate certain products in the realm of luxury goods.
For example, Hermes Birkin bags are renowned not only for their exceptional craftsmanship but also for their rarity. The presence of a certificate of authenticity or the original box can significantly elevate their resale value. This certificate serves as a testament to the bag's origin and a guarantee of its pristine condition, thereby enhancing its desirability and worth. Similarly, the value of Patek Philippe watches extends beyond their meticulous craftsmanship to include elements of history, heritage, and exclusivity, which are often reinforced by accompanying authenticity certificates.
In the luxury market, the presence of these certificates can create a stark difference in pricing. The disparity between the price of an equivalent watch with and without a certificate of authenticity can render the paper certificate exponentially more valuable than the watch itself. This phenomenon underscores how the perceived value of luxury items is intricately tied to their provenance and authenticity, often quantified through these certificates. Consequently, these seemingly simple documents play a pivotal role in establishing and maintaining the high market value of luxury goods, reflecting the principle of exclusion in action within the luxury market.
This phenomenon demonstrates the profound impact of factors such as authenticity, provenance, and the emotional appeal associated with owning an exclusive item, complete with all its accoutrements, within the luxury market. These elements, particularly the aspect of limited supply, often outweigh the physical attributes of the item itself in terms of importance. It's the allure and prestige encapsulated in these aspects that ignite consumer desire and significantly enhance the market value of luxury goods.
Regrettably, this dynamic also explains why the value of artworks often escalates following the death of an artist— a direct consequence of the suddenly finite supply. The cessation of new works transforms existing pieces into rarities, amplifying their desirability and perceived value. This stark reality underscores how the luxury market is not just about the intrinsic worth of items but is profoundly influenced by their exclusivity, history, and the unique status they confer upon their owners.
This dynamic reveals a fundamental divergence in how luxury goods are valued compared to traditional products. In the luxury market, intangible factors—such as authenticity, the narrative surrounding the product, and its exclusivity—emerge as the primary catalysts of consumer desire and market value. Within this context, the emotional and symbolic appeal of possessing something 'certified-authentic' frequently supersedes practical utility, unveiling a distinctive value system that predominates the luxury sector.
This paradigm shift highlights a compelling facet of consumer psychology: the allure and exclusivity signified by a certificate of authenticity often overshadow the tangible attributes of the luxury item itself. It is the prestige of being able to afford a limited-edition item—regardless of its practicality—that embodies a 'wealth flaunting use value.' This sentiment, "I can afford it, but you cannot, hence I am superior," underpins the high prices and sustained exchange value of luxury goods. Governed by the principle of exclusion, the luxury market thrives on this unique blend of emotional resonance, storytelling, and exclusivity, distinguishing it from conventional consumer goods markets.
In conclusion, the Diamond-Water Paradox and the principle of exclusion provide valuable perspectives on the intricacies of market valuation. These principles shed light on the pivotal role of perceived scarcity, authenticity, and exclusivity in shaping market dynamics, often underscored by certificates of authenticity. This influence is particularly pronounced in the luxury goods sector and the domain of intellectual property, where the interplay between perceived and intrinsic value becomes evident. These dynamics highlight that market valuation transcends tangible qualities, being deeply influenced by psychological and social factors.
The significance of these elements in driving consumer behavior and influencing market trends across diverse sectors marks a critical facet of contemporary economics. As we look to the future, grasping and maneuvering through this complex interplay between perception and value will remain crucial for businesses and consumers. Navigating the ever-changing landscapes of luxury markets and intellectual property requires a nuanced understanding of these dynamics, emphasizing the evolving nature of economic value in the modern world.
Reevaluating Ownership and Value in the Age of NFTs
As the landscape of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) evolves, especially with digital renditions of artworks like those by Banksy, a pressing question emerges: What does ownership entail in the context of NFTs, where traditional exclusion from asset use does not apply? Ownership of tangible assets, such as diamonds or Hermès bags, has historically been defined by the ability to exclude others from their use, serving as a form of wealth display. This principle extends to intangible assets like patents and copyrights, where value is intimately linked to the owner’s exclusive access rights.
However, NFTs, as blockchain-based records for digital assets, do not inherently restrict others from viewing or enjoying the digital content they represent. This presents a paradox: NFT ownership, while verifiable and indisputable on the blockchain, lacks the 'wealth flaunting' use value typically derived from exclusivity. This raises the question: How do you flaunt wealth based on how many shares of an NFT you own?
Consider the contrast between donating famous artworks to museums versus purchasing NFT shares. Museum donors gain not only recognition but also access to exclusive events, leveraging the museum's ability to exclude non-paying visitors to signal wealth and status. In contrast, NFTs challenge traditional ownership concepts by allowing communal enjoyment of the digital content, similar to shared natural resources like air or water. Thus, while NFT ownership is legally and technically valid, it does not preclude public appreciation of the digital asset, questioning the traditional values of status and exclusivity typically associated with ownership.
This scenario necessitates a reevaluation of the NFT market as a wise investment choice, given its departure from established principles of wealth representation and exclusivity. Investors in NFTs may find themselves in a precarious position, reminiscent of 'The Emperor's New Clothes,' potentially vulnerable to significant risks. The comparison to historical speculative bubbles, such as the tulip mania, becomes particularly salient. Unlike tulip owners, who could exclude others from experiencing their flowers' beauty and fragrance, NFT owners lack this critical element of exclusivity. This casts doubt on their long-term investment viability, especially considering that NFTs, objectively or subjectively, may lack any use value at all, even as a means to flaunt wealth.
Maximizing Exchange Value through Exclusion and Liquidity: The Role of Trust Network Tokens (TNTs) in the Art World
The art industry is undergoing a transformative shift with the advent of Trust Network Tokens (TNTs), an advanced evolution of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) enhanced with cutting-edge technology. TNTs are revolutionizing art ownership by ensuring that the use value of art is exclusively available to paying customers. This exclusivity is achieved through a secure, globally distributed database accessible only to the majority shareholders of TNT art shares, in line with the original agreement between the artist and the TNT shareholders. TNTs offer superior security over traditional banking systems, incorporating features like 'Cloak' for encryption and 'Brand Shield' for copyright infringement protection, thus safeguarding both TNT art shares and the associated copyrighted works.
At the core of the TNT concept is Trust Network Technology, which also inspired the token's name. The TNT-bank utilizes a blockchain-based, double-entry general ledger system that is open-source and operates on a decentralized peer-to-peer network. Unique to this system, bank clients, who are also node owners, manage all transactions. This setup distinguishes TNTs from traditional NFTs, setting new standards for digital ownership and value in the art sector.
A key feature of Trust Network Tokens, often referred to as art-shares, is their guaranteed fiat currency income. The first installment of this income comes from the sales proceeds of the original artwork auctioned at prestigious houses like Christie's or Sotheby's. These auctions are organized by the general partner of the corresponding LLC, which sells the art shares. Before the auction, the original artist transfers the painting and all associated copyrights, including exclusive access to the artwork’s high-resolution version, to a partnership in exchange for a majority stake. TNTs represent the artist’s shares in this partnership, available for purchase under Regulation D.
After selling some LLC shares, the original painting is auctioned, providing fiat currency income to art-shareholders proportional to their LLC ownership. Additionally, copyrights to limited edition prints remain with TNT art shareholders, managed as outlined in the offering memorandum. This exclusivity significantly enhances the market value of art shares, demonstrating the tangible fiat currency appeal and intrinsic value of TNTs.
Structured as an LLC hedge fund investment under Regulation D for accredited US investors, TNTs target a financially sophisticated audience. While SEC’s Rule 506(c) allows TNTs to be marketed to the general public, sales are restricted to high-net-worth individuals. This exclusivity not only underscores the elite nature of TNT-bank art shares but also allows artists to restrict broader market access, preserving the privilege of viewing the artwork in its full glory exclusively for a select group of original TNT-backed art-share holders within the TNT-blockchain.
In marketing TNTs to investors, we aim to leverage existing NFT distribution and promotional channels, showcasing TNTs' unique value proposition and attracting potential investors to exclusive art ownership opportunities. The combination of legal support and high-end digital art allure makes TNTs particularly appealing in the digital art market.
For artists, TNTs offer new avenues to sell shares of their original artwork, facilitating direct monetization while protecting their copyrights with Cloak encryption and ‘Brand Shielded’ copyrights. TNT art share purchasers can diversify their investments, trading shares in different art objects or converting them into fiat currency, offering flexibility and diversification potential attractive for various investment strategies and risk mitigation.
The unique appeal of TNTs lies in their blend of exclusivity and liquidity. Owners can quickly convert their holdings into fiat currency through partner custodian banks, akin to selling shares in major corporations. This fusion expands TNTs' appeal in the digital asset market, positioning them as both secure investments and sources of immediate financial liquidity, appealing to investors who value the exclusivity of high-end art ownership alongside practical financial benefits.
In conclusion, the emergence of TNTs in the art world exemplifies how integrating the principle of exclusion with liquidity can elevate the exchange value of digital assets. TNTs mark a significant paradigm shift in the art market, creating new channels for investment and ownership. Their potential impact on artists, investors, and the broader art industry is considerable, signaling a promising future in both the art market and digital asset investments.
Conclusion: The Strategic Investment Potential of Trust Network Tokens
As we conclude this white paper, the transformative impact of Trust Network Tokens (TNTs) on the art market is evident. TNTs, by leveraging the principle of exclusion, introduce a groundbreaking approach to art valuation and protection. This approach shares similarities with the value associated with luxury items like Patek Philippe watches and genuine diamonds.
TNTs provide artists with a legally secure means to safeguard their digital creations. This not only significantly enhances the value of these digital assets but also enables shared ownership while ensuring perpetual provenance, authenticity, and uniqueness. With art shares, investors acquire copyrights, a limited and highly coveted asset. Copyrights, akin to exceptional ideas, are inherently scarce. Investing in art shares means becoming a stakeholder in a unique asset—an idea that is copyrightable, granting exclusive control over its use. This uniqueness embodies a valuable asset, perfectly aligned with the principle of exclusion.
In essence, TNTs are reshaping the art market landscape, offering new opportunities for investment and ownership. Their profound potential influence on artists, investors, and the broader art industry signals a bright future for both the art market and digital asset investments.
TNTs are at the forefront of this revolution, providing unequivocal proof of authenticity through blockchain technology, closely tied to the artist's original copyrights. This fusion of legal expertise and technological innovation not only safeguards the artist's rights but also establishes TNTs as a crucial asset in the art investment realm. Artists, as central figures in the TNT-backed hedge fund, enjoy amplified earnings and expanded market reach.
For investors, TNTs are a strategically innovative choice in the dynamic art world. Their ability to ensure authenticity and exclusivity, along with their easy conversion into fiat currency through custodian banks, positions them as a unique investment opportunity. These attributes offer significant financial benefits, enhancing the liquidity and desirability of digital art ownership.
Moreover, TNTs enable investors to display their wealth, discernment, taste, and cultural sophistication. This transcends mere acquisition, reflecting a deeper level of refinement and selectivity in art procurement. TNTs could potentially offer the exclusive right to view an authentic, full-resolution digital artwork, preserving the artist's original intent, unmatched by any other medium.
Custodian banks play a pivotal role in this ecosystem, akin to prime brokers in traditional financial markets. They facilitate the conversion of art shares into fiat currency and manage the distribution of auction proceeds to TNT shareholders. This critical function boosts the financial security and potential profitability of TNT investments, increasing their allure in the digital art market.
Looking ahead, TNTs have immense potential to revolutionize the art market and digital asset investments. Their unique combination of legal protection, technological advancement, and market exclusivity is set to redefine how art is valued, traded, and invested in. For those interested in the burgeoning digital art market, TNTs offer a compelling, secure, and potentially lucrative avenue. The introduction of TNTs marks a significant milestone in the art world, heralding future advancements and growth in digital art investment.
For technical details, visit https://haykov.substack.com/p/tnt-a-layer-1-network
References
Aristotle. "Politics" (4th century BCE).
Smith, Adam. "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" (1776).
Ricardo, David. "Principles of Political Economy and Taxation" (1817).
Marx, Karl. "Das Kapital" (Volume 1, 1867).
Arrow, K. J. (1951). "An Extension of the Basic Theorems of Classical Welfare Economics." In Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 507–532.
Arrow, K. J., & Debreu, G. (1954). "Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy". Econometrica, 22(3), 265–290.
Debreu, G. (1951). "The Coefficient of Resource Utilization". Econometrica, 19(3), 273–292.
Debreu, G. (1959). "Theory of Value: An Axiomatic Analysis of Economic Equilibrium". New Haven: Yale University Press.