[Victoribus Spolia]

You are forgetting the desire of the apple vendors for your money. What you are seeing as a "great supply" is to them a "small supply" because on their end of the negotiation the "supply" is your money. I don't think you understood what I said at all.

Indeed, this is also evidenced by the fact that homes lost about a 1/3 of their market value (as reflected in price) when the housing market crashed in 2008, which is manifestly a case where prices dropped in a relatively stable supply market. This price drop didn't happen because someone built one million too many homes, which is what @B0ycey 's argument would imply.

If anything, the drop in value (and therefore price) is what killed the supply as a consequence.

[B0ycey]

Time to come clean.

Do you have a penis? Yes or No?

I don't like declaring things on PoFo because from studying social media, I know by declaring things will have an impact on impartial debate for me. And that is my purpose for being on here.

For example, if I say I am male, people will prejudge my opinion on say something like feminism even if they would have agreed with it if I said I was a women. If you don't declare anything, it is treated fairly regardless whether you are male or female.

But I will make an exception today on this one thing. Because debating gender isn't something I care too much about. I am male. Both in terms of sex and gender. I don't really know how SolarCross reached his verdict as the presentation of my posts seem quite male orientated actually.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@B0ycey has a PENIS!!!

[SolarCross]

Indeed, this is also evidenced by the fact that homes lost about a 1/3 of their market value (as reflected in price) when the housing market crashed in 2008, which is manifestly a case where prices dropped in a relatively stable supply market. This price drop didn't happen because someone built one million too many homes, which is what @B0ycey 's argument would imply.

If anything, the drop in value (and therefore price) is what killed the supply as a consequence.

This is where we have to remember that money is a "supply" on its own. The house price crash wasn't driven by a crash in the number of homes (just as you say) but was caused by a crash in the amount of money available to house purchasers as the mortgage providers dropped the supply of fake money for home loans.

-------

@B0ycey don't take it personally the gender thing. Just as you say you keep yourself neutral in online debates so I didn't know either way. I chose "her" on a coin toss.

[B0ycey]

You are forgetting the desire of the apple vendors for your money. What you are seeing as a "great supply" is to them a "small supply" because on their end of the negotiation the "supply" is your money. I don't think you understood what I said at all.

It doesn't matter. The goal is sell fruit. No vendor wants to go home with rotten apples. Their goal is to make a profit, even if it is reduced. Competition keeps the profit low if it is high. Desire to buy the fruit isn't a major factor in the price. Competition is.

Gold is a prime example. In terms of usefulness, compared to say Carbon, it's not really needed to make society function. But the rareness of the element keeps it's price high in comparison.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The house price crash wasn't driven by a crash in the number of homes (just as you say) but was caused by a crash in the amount of money available to house purchasers as the mortgage providers dropped the supply of fake money for home loans.

I am not contending the role of fractional reserve lending in the housing crash, my only point is that supply cannot be said to be the primary determiner of price, as you had said, price is a market agree based on socially perceived value. Price is a measurement of value in the market which assumes a relationship between both supply and demand.

The idea that price is determined purely by supply and is completely different than "value" is silly.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Gold is a prime example. In terms of usefulness, compared to say Carbon, it's not really needed to make society function. But the rareness of the element keeps it's price high in comparison.

Once again though, there are plenty of things that are "one-of-a-kind" (super low supply); that may have very low or no market value (reflected with low price).

If there is no demand, it does not matter of high or low the supply is, the price WILL be ZERO.

[B0ycey]

Indeed, this is also evidenced by the fact that homes lost about a 1/3 of their market value (as reflected in price) when the housing market crashed in 2008, which is manifestly a case where prices dropped in a relatively stable supply market. This price drop didn't happen because someone built one million too many homes, which is what @B0ycey 's argument would imply.

If anything, the drop in value (and therefore price) is what killed the supply as a consequence.

The house market is a bubble and always will be. And prices are indeed determined by supply and demand. When banks don't lent, people do not have the capital to buy. So the demand reduces bursting the bubible along with the price.

There is a reason why houses of equal stature and their price are determined by the location they are in and not the fact they are the same btw. Although all home owners value their homes equally I am sure.

[SolarCross]

The real question the OP should have had: "is Demand and Supply interchangeable?" I say yes because one man's supply is another man's demand and vice versa.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Although all home owners value their homes equally I am sure.

Thats not even true. I value a better home more than the one I currently live in, and so I would be willing to pay more for a nicer house.

This is the problem with you equating necessity with value, which I already addressed.

There are plenty of things that are not necessary for my survival that I value nonetheless (like my family, for instance).

People all need shelter equally, but they don't necessarily value their homes equally and the relative disparities between these values is measured by what we call "the price."

[SolarCross]

I should say that although to the neutral observer supply and demand are equivalent exchanges are demand driven because when we show up at a market we do so not so much to get rid of things we don't want so much as to get something we don't have but do want. If you don't care about getting something from an exchange by giving away things you don't want to keep then you could always just throw those things away.

[B0ycey]

@B0ycey don't take it personally the gender thing. Just as you say you keep yourself neutral in online debates so I didn't know either way. I chose "her" on a coin toss.

Don't worry. I take no offence. As I am sure you would know by now, I do not consider women to be less worth than men, so it would never be an insult to me to be declared a women. Even more so when you do not know.

Once again though, there are plenty of things that are "one-of-a-kind" (super low supply); that may have very low or no market value (reflected with low price).

If there is no demand, it does not matter of high or low the supply is, the price WILL be ZERO.

I agree. There does need to be a market to make something have a price. And that is why the phase "supply and demand" isn't just "supply". But I do consider the supply to be more of a factor in price. And the reason I think that is down to the questions I gave you yesterday.

What would you forever rather do without, water or a computer ?

What would you pay a thousand dollars for now. A bottle of water or a computer?

[Godstud]

What would you forever rather do without, water or a computer ?

I can drink beer.

What would you pay a thousand dollars for now. A bottle of water or a computer?

Computer. I'm not thirsty right now.

[B0ycey]

This is the problem with you equating necessity with value, which I already addressed.

There are plenty of things that are not necessary for my survival that I value nonetheless (like my family, for instance).

This is a fair point. And perhaps would enhance the purpose of value. Sentiment actually has no price. But the things you value of necessity do. However the price you will pay for those things you value of necessity are influenced by supply and not your attachment/need for it I would suggest.

[SolarCross]

Regarding water as an object of demand we have to remain aware that it is not water itself that we value what we value is remaining alive and not feeling thirsty for which water is a necessary ingredient. Remaining alive is a high value goal regardless of the scarcity of water.

[Rancid]

The value of water diminishes with the more of it you have available. There's a minimal amount of water needed to stay alive. once that is met, the value of water goes down. Then you have water for things like cooking, cleaning, and hygene. Once all of that is met, the value of water goes down further, etc. etc.

[B0ycey]

Regarding water as an object of demand we have to remain aware that it is not water itself that we value what we value is remaining alive and not feeling thirsty for which water is necessary ingredient. Remaining alive is a high value goal regardless of the scarcity of water.

It is the importance of water to our survival that gives it its value actually. So it is valuable to us nonetheless.

But sure, I doubt anyone considers how valuable it is to us until it is scarce. That is human nature.

[SolarCross]

It is the importance of water to our survival that gives it its value actually. So it is valuable to us nonetheless.

But sure, I doubt anyone considers how valuable it is to us until it is scarce. That is human nature.

The same goes for air or even more so. Under most circumstances it is available in limitless quantities at the only cost of the micro-calories needed to exercise your diaphragm and chest muscles but if for some reason locally you ran out of it (drowning for example) for even just a few minutes you will die. You can last for days without water.

[Victoribus Spolia]

But sure, I doubt anyone considers how valuable it is to us until it is scarce. That is human nature.

Absolutely, human nature and scarcity are the fundamental circumstance of economic exchange, one might even say that these two points represent its essence.

Free-exchange via supply and demand based on marginal utility and the subjective imputation of value merely flow from this essence and are likewise defined by it.

[Saeko]

So you wouldn't value a bottle of water more if you were dying of thirst in the Sahara than if you were swimming in lake Tahoe?

The bottle of water has the same value regardless of whether you're in the Sahara or in lake Tahoe.

This is what I meant by economic cuckoldry. You don't just fork over $1000 to every water bottle merchant that crosses your way in the Sahara. You take the lowest price that your wits, resources, circumstances, and strength can get you. If you can just steal the water bottle, then its price is effectively zero even in the Sahara. Does that mean it's worthless? No.