Is price and value interchangable? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14947913
SolarCross wrote: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.


How much would you pay for the air you breathe outside your house? Because it is so abundant, its price is effectively "Zero". So again supply out strips demand.
#14947914
B0ycey wrote:How much would you pay for the air you breathe outside your house? Because it is so abundant, its price is effectively "Zero". So again supply out strips demand.

I pay the same price for air outside my house as inside; I pay the few calories needed to operate my cardio-vascular system. That is what I sacrifice to gain the benefit of oxygen. I only do this because I demand to continue living. If I had no demand for life I wouldn't bother breathing.
#14947915
Saeko wrote:The bottle of water has the same value regardless of whether you're in the Sahara or in lake Tahoe.


Nonsense.

Saeko wrote:You don't just fork over $1000 to every water bottle merchant that crosses your way in the Sahara.


I would never argue such and it is perfectly rational for you to pay $1000.00 for a bottle of water if every other bottle offered was $1500.00. I never claimed otherwise. :eh:

The point is that the price you are willing to pay is higher in the circumstance of the desert because you value the water much more than in a situation where you could dip out of the lake without coughing up a single penny.

This is marginal utility. :lol:

Saeko wrote: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.


Agreed, but I never said that either, price and value are not synonyms, but value is measured in the market by price.

How this basic idea could be called"cuckoldry" is baffling to me, at some point one must wonder whether co-opting the language of the alt-right has circumstances that simply don't make any sense.

Adopting black kids in order to signal your "muh-diversity" virtue? Sure, it makes sense to call that "cuckoldry."

but arguing that water is more valuable to a man dying of thirst than someone swimming is lake is somehow to being a cuck? At some point you can stretch a term to the point that you make it meaningless Saeko.

If you think something is dumb, just says it dumb, quit ruining a beautiful insult like "cuck" because you like the way it sounds in a rebuttal.
#14947917
A puddle of water in the desert will have an inherently higher value to people than a puddle of water in the Amazon where it rains constantly.

Price is just a means of trying to quantify that inherent value. It's certainly not a perfect measure of value, but it's the best we have I guess.
#14947918
Rancid wrote:A puddle of water in the desert will have an inherently higher value to people than a puddle of water in the Amazon where it rains constantly.

Price is just a means of trying to quantify that inherent value. It's certainly not a perfect measure of value, but it's the best we have I guess.


Correct.

I really don't understand why the obvious is so complicated for some.

Its like explaining to people that boys have dicks and chicks have cunts....we live in a world where that is now a controversial statement.

I guess I shouldn't be so surprised.
#14947920
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I really don't understand why the obvious is so complicated for some.


Rancid's point doesn't address the debate though. His example of price, when broken up, was down to supply and not value. Until he does that, don't declare that it is obvious.

But I do think it is more obvious that price is more down to supply than value actually. Perhaps price is trying to quantify the inherent measure of supply?
#14947921
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Nonsense.



I would never argue such and it is perfectly rational for you to pay $1000.00 for a bottle of water if every other bottle offered was $1500.00. I never claimed otherwise. :eh:

The point is that the price you are willing to pay is higher in the circumstance of the desert because you value the water much more than in a situation where you could dip out of the lake without coughing up a single penny.

This is marginal utility. :lol:


That would be because of the options available to you, not because water somehow magically becomes more valuable in a desert.


How this basic idea could be called"cuckoldry" is baffling to me, at some point one must wonder whether co-opting the language of the alt-right has circumstances that simply don't make any sense.


Cuckoldry because you're letting your wallet get screwed by the owning classes and loving it. You simply accept whatever the market offers and hope that things will magically work out for you. You are apparently not even capable of conceiving the idea that the market is just another thing to be dominated, that you are a part of it, and that others are dominating you through it.
#14947922
B0ycey wrote:Rancid's point doesn't address the debate though. His example of price, when broken up, was down to supply and not value. Until he does that, don't declare that it is obvious.

But I do think it is more obvious that price is more down to supply than value actually. Perhaps price is trying to quantify the inherent measure of supply?

Price is an exchange ratio between two commodities in the context of an exchange. The relative supply of the two commodities will strongly influence that ratio but without demand on both sides the exchange will not happen at all.
#14947923
SolarCross wrote:Price is an exchange ratio between two commodities in the context of an exchange. The relative supply of the two commodities will strongly influence that ratio but without demand on both sides the exchange will not happen at all.


This quote is now moving the debate forward to microeconomics. But sure, there needs to be a demand that is deemed equal for both sides. And if you bring in other economic factors such as capitalism, the need for profit over loss becomes a factor too.

But none of this is a distraction that supply is more of a factor in price than value.
#14947924
B0ycey wrote:Rancid's point doesn't address the debate though. His example of price, when broken up, was down to supply and not value. Until he does that, don't declare that it is obvious.


What are we debating about value? If price and value are interchangeable? I guess I should start by asking you to define what value means.
#14947925
B0ycey wrote:This quote is now moving the debate forward to microeconomics. But sure, there needs to be a demand that is deemed equal for both sides. And if you bring in other economic factors such as capitalism, the need for profit over loss becomes a factor too.

But none of this is a distraction that supply is more of a factor in price than value.

Aggregate demand is not microeconomics. What implication do you wish to draw from all this harping on about supply?
#14947934
SolarCross wrote:As with the small so with the large. What implication do you wish to draw from going on about supply as if demand didn't matter?


I never said demand doesn't matter. Without demand there is no price. But if you look at a commodity such as water which has a high supply and demand compared to Gold with a lower supply and a lower demand, which has a higher price?
#14947937
B0ycey wrote:Without demand there is no price. But if you look at a commodity such as water which has a high supply and demand compared to Gold with a lower supply and a lower demand, which has a higher price?


Assuming water always has a high demand is incorrect.

By the way, the question you as asking is called the diamond paradox. It was answered like 100-200 years ago (I think). The key is in the fact that you cannot assume the demand/value of water is always high.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value
Last edited by Rancid on 21 Sep 2018 17:36, edited 1 time in total.
#14947938
Saeko wrote:That would be because of the options available to you....


Well of course! But even if the options for you were as much free water as you could gulp, it doesn't change the fact that you would be willing to pay whatever you could afford for that water had you been dying of thirst just five minutes prior as compared to swimming in a fresh water lake.

Lets not over complicate this, value changes based on YOU and price reflects this value in a market where supply exists to meet demand.

That water has some nebulous minimal value is only because humans need it to survive; however, like anything else, this can be attributed to human nature, without which, we wouldn't have economic considerations to examine in the first place.

Saeko wrote:Cuckoldry because you're letting your wallet get screwed by the owning classes and loving it.


This is a loser's take on the market, Whether i become an off-grid farmer, an entrepreneur, a chef, or a prostitute is based on my ability to market what I got to those willing to pay for it.

If you are letting others fuck you in the ass in the open market, that is your own failure, but don't mistake the success of others in this market as mere naivety as if the cynicism that has resulted from your own shortcomings somehow makes you an economic sage. It doesn't.

I have not failed to get what I want in life and that is because of the decisions I have made in the market and the guiding Grace of God.

I have yet to regret a single decision. If that makes a cuck, so be it....gimme dem rolled up dollar-bill cocks, pulsating with dimes and pennies. :lol:

Image

Saeko wrote:You simply accept whatever the market offers and hope that things will magically work out for you


I control my marketability, I decide whether I want to take out a loan, I decide what I want to buy and how much I am willing to pay for it.

What about this is tough for you? If you sold yourself into some sort of serfdom at a BDSM toy store, thats pretty well your own problem.

Saeko wrote:You are apparently not even capable of conceiving the idea that the market is just another thing to be dominated, that you are a part of it, and that others are dominating you through it.


Oh, I do, but that domination is matter of Will and goals. I have goals and they cost something, the question is whether I have the will to accomplish it.

The proof is in the pudding.

I have won what I wanted in life, I'm sorry if you haven't, but blaming that on capitalism is a scapegoat, not an argument.
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 21 Sep 2018 18:03, edited 1 time in total.
#14947939
Since no one has yet pointed it out, it falls to me, the forum Grammar Nazi, to point out that the title should read "Are price and value interchangeable?" (Note that 'interchangeable' is also misspelled in the title).
#14947940
Saeko wrote:Since no one has yet pointed it out, it falls to me, the forum Grammar Nazi, to point out that the title should read "Are price and value interchangeable?" (Note that 'interchangeable' is also misspelled in the title).


:lol: Leave it @B0ycey to fuck up the title's grammar and spelling.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Atheism is Evil

Nonsense- There are variations in skills or perf[…]

No reparations. One note though. We are not ta[…]

I think it should remain an independent nation. I[…]

I think this is one of the best examples yet of ho[…]