That is an interesting thought, but works only in a staid objective value system. The land of androids. In our lives, we live by the subjective value system, where our value is proportionately tied to our desires...
"Whattttt!?!?!"
Errrrr, no. What you're contesting, OVn, is Price Theory. You're arguing against 150 years of neoclassical economics, the Chicago School in particular, and Stigler, Friedman, Becker, right to Freakonomics authors Levitt & Dubner. It won't go well.
Your car example...? Are you trying to imply that, in a free market, any rational actor would
ever pay more for something than they thought it was worth?
You no longer have a consistent system of logic through-out your model, as you broke it at the beginning: the rational actor. Consumer sovereignty -- the grand filter which places the buyer in control of what stays/survives in the marketplace -- itself depends on that rational actor.
If you really WANT that red stone and it is the only one available for $20K, then you will have to fork up the $20K to have it. It doesn't matter what you think it is worth...You will pay what the market price bears. Thankfully we live in a system that embraces competition.
You are forgetting that the market price comes from transactions between willing buyers and willing sellers. "What the market bears" depends on both sides. If the gem-holder thinks it is worth $20k and I think it is worth $200 -- there is *nothing* that compels me to pay even $200.01 for it. Zero. Thus, no market. Thus, no market price. "Competition" has nothing to do with this buyer/seller rivalry, BTW. "Competition" is between rival buyers and between rival sellers, each seeking to step in front of the other in the bids and offers in which they compete. FWIW and all that.
What Baron was pointing out was just the basic supply/demand thing. What Scat was griping about was the crypto bullshit. Both are correct.
No. Baron's primary thesis was/is that limited supply is the shit. And ignores that rhino turds {actual shit!
}, which are in scarce supply seemingly everywhere except in Google Images
, are simply
sans market -- they are lacking. No demand -- no rational actor wants them at a price worthwhile to supply: Consumer Sovereignty 'reigns' again.
Anyways, of course all the rest are just speculative garbage, backed by truly no value...Only by what value the people who buy and sell them are willing to pay each other for exchanging them.
Like the Pet Rock, and bottled Manhattan air. And these days, we have Gwenyth Paltrow selling
https://shop.goop.com/shop/products/mini-cuff-sado-chic-chain-mini-o-r-mini?taxon_id=1489
Exactly. We can bring all sorts of things to market. But what stays (in a free&fair market) depends on what is bought -- and that depends on a rational actor: Consumer Sovereignty. And if you want to argue with someone buying $100 pebbles to stuff up their naughty bits? We're back to "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandem."
And just to return back to Price Theory itself, we don't *need* to know (or make sense of) why someone would buy something -- when or how they might use it, whether they might give it away, whether it's a part in some greater whole, or whatever! We don't need to know. We only need to know that they thought it was worth
the price they paid.
((
And so, one last Chicago School giant, one last Nobel Prize winner, one last url, for Friedrich von Hayek:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek ))
