To say that value is subjective does not mean that we cannot rank things. Clearly some things are more valuable than others. To give a computer science analogy it’s like say that just because numbers are infinite you cannot count them.
> To say that value is subjective does not mean that we cannot rank things.
Unless you mean “...according to one set of preferences”, it means exactly that..
> Clearly some things are more valuable than others.
No, you are again trying to make your own preferences and objective yardstick of value. Something's are more valuable to to some people, and these things are also less valuable to other people.
While there are lots of reasons to argue it's not an ideal aggregate (e.g., and this is far from the only factor, because people don't enter transactions in the same starting position, so preexisting wealth weights things) markets are one of the mechanisms of aggregating preference to arrive at “value”.
> To give a computer science analogy it’s like say that just because numbers are infinite you cannot count them.
No, saying that subjective value can't have objective ranking is more like saying that because there isn't a bijection between reals and naturals, the reals aren't countable.
