And how do you compare metric tonnes of steel produced, with metric tonnes of plastic produced? What about metric tonnes (hours?) of entertainment on films?

The metric to measure value using quantity of goods must use a common denominator unit, otherwise, comparison becomes subjective (one might want to value tangible goods more than intangibles for example).

So making comparison using a price makes a lot of sense.

You, of course, can choose these as your units of value.

I think it is telling that the rest of the world (particularly the central banks of most countries) have instead chosen USD (well, more specifically US treasuries) as their preferred store of value.

Well, at least, for now...

(Not the person you were replying to)

You asked a question, they answered in good faith, and now you've dismissed their answer. I would also point out that you're dismissal is actually about a related, but separate issue - you've suddenly started talking about preferred store of value, when your original question was about how to value production.

I don't think you're arguing in good faith.

I pointed out they were providing ridiculous answers to the question of "how do you measure value" and they doubled down on the ridiculous.

You are correct, there are many ways to measure value.

However, I don't think picking various commodities as the "true" measure of what is "valuable" is a useful exercise.

You may disagree. That's fine! I suggest you put your wisdom to use on the various markets that are set up for this purpose instead of arguing with me.

EDIT: they ultimately never reached my main point anyway, which is: regardless of if you measure value in tons of steel or crushed coconut shells, if China could easily obtain that value by assembling this stuff themselves, why export all the inputs to us instead?

> I don't think picking various commodities as the "true" measure of what is "valuable" is a useful exercise.

No one said that a commodity is a "true" measure of value. A commenter simply said that it is often a useful proxy. It is something that is useful to do to understand specific trade patterns.

> I suggest you put your wisdom to use on the various markets that are set up for this purpose instead of arguing with me.

I did not claim any wisdom on the subject. And I suspect you are deflecting attention from the fact that you are not arguing in good faith

> No one said that a commodity is a "true" measure of value. A commenter simply said that it is often a useful proxy. It is something that is useful to do to understand specific trade patterns.

Ok, if it helps replace "true measure" with "useful proxy". My argument remains the same.

Continue to accuse me of whatever you want, I still do not feel you are engaging with the substance of what I'm saying.

I feel like it’s pretty clear that chabska was saying that China does more manufacturing per capita, creates more stuff, whereas the US captures more value.

If a paralegal at a fancy law firm works 9 billable hours at $200/h, and a senior partner then spends one hour adding some finishing touches for which he bills $2000, the paralegal has likely produced more work, but the partner’s output is more valuable (and sometimes it might not even be that useful, maybe the paralegal could’ve done the whole thing himself, but the oversight is part of the package and that’s what a senior partner costs).

Which metric is more useful probably depends on what you’re trying to find out.

I didn't "choose" these, they are standard metrics used by industrial analysts. You know, the people who plan port expansions and cargo ship purchases, they need to deal with the actual tonnes of goods moved, not the dollar value of those goods.

Why should tonnage matter more than value? Would you rather have 10 tons of dung or 1 ton of smartphones?