> What you have written is in fact a circular argument that confirms what I wrote about value.
It is not a circular argument, it is a connection between cause and distal effect.
> There is no extrinsic value in the economically orthodox description of value that you describe in the first line.
I'm not sure what to make of this statement.
> So when the Aussies get their tax system, they must have asked for it. Why? Because they got it.
This is a misrepresentation. By demanding a more just system of taxation, they asked for laws, which ask for bureaucracy, which ask for labor resources, which consume tax revenue. All of these are logical implications, there is no circularity at all.
Similarly, if I ask you to serve me a hamburger, there's the implication that someone somewhere has slaughtered an innocent cow. I don't want the innocent cow slaughtered, I just want to eat the hamburger. Yet, it would be fair to say that I asked for the cow to be slaughtered.
> This is an absurdity.
Not at all. Usually there's a plausible rational explanation for why things had to end up the way they did, but such explanations might be uncomfortable.
> Have you ever complained about the proliferation of utterly terrible reality TV shows?
I don't watch TV.
> Very few people think it's anything but mindless garbage. But it's there, so it must be wanted, because it's there.
Very few people think McDonald's serves good food, yet a lot of people buy it. Similarly, nobody would continue to spend money to produce more and more TV shows that nobody wants to watch. Being "mindless garbage" clearly isn't an impediment to success with the right audience. Consider the pareto principle.
> Plenty of other examples in society of things that exist but nobody appreciates them.
Just because it isn't "appreciated" doesn't mean there isn't demand for it.
> Anyway, been reading Mazzucato recently.
Doesn't seem to have done you any good.