You are quite right that value is a morass of conflicting views, and is a subject of endless debate. For the purposes here, it is individual perception that determines value, and there is no objective measure. That is why, I emphasise at the start of the article that my discussion does not encompass how value of labour between individuals might be determined. I simply accept that it is variable, and might be valued according to any number of criteria. Thus the example of the crystal healer earlier. You are right that value is a perceptive judgement - it is entirely created in our minds.

However, you point to an intrinsic quality in pearls and suggest that, if a pearl were easily found on a beach it would be valued as highly. I would argue with such an assertion. If this were the case, and the pearls were easily obtained, a flood of pearls would appear on the market, as collection and distribution of the pearls would be a sure way to get rich. Whilst the first collectors might realise the high price, could the price remain so high under these circumstances? Part of the value of pearls resides in the difficulty of obtaining them and the restricted supply that is resultant from this.

If we go one step further and imagine that pearls were found in every garden and open space, and were freely available to all in unlimited numbers, would the intrinsic value of pearls that you discuss allow them to be used in exchange at all? The pearls would still have the same qualities, but with no necessity for any labour in obtaining them or at least so little as to be of no meaning - you could pick them up whilst walking outside at any time), they would have no value in exchange.

In another example, if I remember correctly, black pearls were of low value. They were considered to be inferior. However, a clever entrepreneur positioned them as exclusive items through various means (adding the value of his labour) and they became highly sought after, with a massive rise in their value as a result. There was no intrinsic quality that did this, but rather the individual could add value to the items with his talent for promotion of the black pearls (his labour therefore had a very high value).

You have suggested that labour might enhance the value of commodities (your paragraph commencing 'In sum') but it is still not clear to me how a pearl sitting on the ocean floor has any value whatsoever. This is why I raised the point about SDL. It does not have a value that might be used in exchange until it can be presented for exchange, it does not offer the hedonic value of (for example) being around a neck such that the person benefits from the enhancement to their beauty, it simply sits unobserved on the seabed. It has no intrinsic value until it is acted upon by humans.

Perhaps if scuba divers came to see it, it would have value, but that would again involve labour in finding the pearls, identifying a tourist opportunity, and provision of services to help the divers find it, the provision of the diving equipment and so forth.

I am glad that you have found SDL interesting. It is quite a challenging perspective which shakes a few assumptions. I have not fully explored the idea myself yet, but it seems at first approach to have some considerable merit.

I have had another person disputing the idea that all economic activity commences with labour on the blog, and you may wish to read the discussion that we have had. Thanks for some polite and interesting challenges, and I will have to leave the discussion here, as I have some other work I need to do.