I stated previously that goods produced and unsold have no value to anyone but their producer. What’s more, AFTER THE FACT (ex post) one can count how much the total production costs of those goods REALLY were, which he SUBJECTIVELY considered worth incurring then, when he made his decision on the matter (ex ante). The thing is, however, that NOW it is likely that, for him too, these unsold goods will lose some or even all of this value, and in certain circumstances will even gain a so-called NEGATIVE VALUE. The latter is the case when the producer has to add to the already incurred production costs of the unsold goods the cost of disposing of them. In order to avoid the latter situation, in such a case many producers try to sell their goods for any price lower than the cost of production, and are even ready to give them away for free.
Thus, when considering the question of value in general, and the value of goods in particular, it should be emphasized that in order to achieve ANY GOAL, you ALWAYS have to put something into it. SOMETIMES it’s just some personal EFFORT, as in the case of walking or gymnastics for health. SOMETIMES you have to add to it some greater or lesser material and financial outlays, such as in the case of mountain climbing or other forms of so-called qualified tourism. On the other hand, when a SPECIFIC PURPOSE is involved, such as the PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR SALE, specific financial outlays are ALWAYS necessary to achieve it, in addition to intellectual and physical effort.
And it is precisely this EVERYTHING THAT MUST BE SACRIFICED to achieve any goal that determines ITS VALUE TO THAT PERSON who has decided to take action to achieve that goal. The most important thing in all of this, however, is that this assessment that IT IS WORTH IT, i.e. that the intended goal IS WORTH IT, must occur BEFORE appropriate actions are taken (ex ante). Otherwise, no action can take place. Verification of the validity of such an assessment, however, is possible only AFTER THE FACT (ex post). And then it is not at all uncommon to reflect that the original decision was not right, because the goal achieved IS NOT worth the sacrifice made.
Such SUBJECTIVELY VARYING assessment of value applies to market goods as well as to any other tangible or intangible goal. I think every reader has more than once had this very feeling after buying some commodity or achieving some other goal. I also think that no one doubts that this is how the producer of those goods he failed to sell must evaluate his previous decision after the fact. They certainly do not have the value for him that he hoped for when he embarked on their production, and in the extreme case I mentioned at the beginning, they have a NEGATIVE VALUE. In light of the above, the conclusion that is difficult to question is that the concept of VALUE applies to ANY PURPOSE of human action, not just GOODS, and that it is a completely SUBJECTIVE concept regardless of how many people share a given assessment. The fact that, for example, 30,000 buyers thought it WORTH paying 250,000 zlotys at the dealership for a certain model of Nissan or Ford, does not make that price the OBJECTIVE VALUE of that model. This is demonstrated by the fact that the rest of the population has decided, for various reasons, that it is NOT WORTH making the effort to earn and spend that 250,000 zlotys to buy that model.
Additional proof of the validity of the thesis of the SUBJECTIVE nature of the value of all goals, including tangible and intangible goods, are sales. In any case, these are operations aimed at recovering at least a portion of the production costs incurred and avoiding extreme situations in which the ASSUMED ex ante POSITIVE VALUE of the goods produced turns ex post into a REAL NEGATIVE VALUE. What better proof is needed that GOODS HAVE NO OBJECTIVE VALUE?