/liberty/ - Liberty

More commonly it's not denied that the price is between what the commodity is worth to either one. A Marxist might say that an exchange is unfair if it alienates labour, an econoism might complain about his bargaining power metric, a Natsoc could take issue if they have different ethnicity. In any case, the regulator claims some special knowledge of one or both parties' preferences, rather than the exchange itself.

>>69538

Well, if both party didn't value the materials they where getting from the exchange more than what they already had. The exchange would have never happen in the first place. An I don't see what fairness has to do with anything when both of the are in control of their resources.

The best liberty videos are Hoppewave videos.

Uploading Hoppewave.

Riding the Hoppewave.

A E S T H E T I C C A P I T A L I S M .

>>69583

i think he overestimates rationalism in humans

>>69536

>muh subjective value.

If I trade you 1 peice of gold for one bag of dirt it doesn't matter how much I value that dirt I lose the trade.

>>69808

Oh boy here we go

>>69644

"Rational action" in economic terms means something very specific and limited. It doesn't mean the people act on logically consistent premises, or in an optimal fashion. It means that a persons actions are always, by definition, logically consistent with their understanding of how to achieve their intended goals. That understanding is almost invariably flawed to some degree or another, but that's outside of the narrow scope of what "rationality" means in an economic context.

>>69808

Lol, you even failed at straw-manning the subjective value theory.

If you knew that the dirt had less value than the gold why did you trade in the first place?

>>69811

so does not they discard fact that humans behave to some extent irrationally (cf. dan ariely)?

>>69810

>>69812

>>69821

If we are talking about market value then I lost the trade no matter how much I love dirt.

>>69838

But why would you even want to trade your gold for dirt, if you didn't value dirt higher than gold?

>>69838

Everyone has some sentimental items with no market value at all. Would someone buy a childhood photo of yours, or some broken wallet that your father fixed with duct tape? Not at all. The market value of such items is exactly zero, probably less (other people would pay to get rid of them), and yet if you lost them and paid a detective to find them, for example, no one in his right mind would call that behavior irrational.

>>69838

This ~> >>69844

Also another video

>>69844

>>69841

>>69853

If I trade something worth 5 dollars on the market for something else worth 5 dollars on the market I have not created any more value in the economy. If we are talking about purely market value then trade does not create it.

>>69931

a reduction of opportunity cost arises from trade. This is what the video means when it states that trade creates wealth.

I suggest learning about Comparative Advantage.

>>69931

>If I trade something worth 5 dollars on the market for something else worth 5 dollars on the market I have not created any more value in the economy. If we are talking about purely market value then trade does not create it.

Well, then we should stop talking about it, because it's nonsense. And also because we didn't talk about it at the beginning: >>69808

>If I trade you 1 peice of gold for one bag of dirt it doesn't matter how much I value that dirt I lose the trade.

Yes, you lost if your goal is to maximize the market value of all your property holdings. But no one in society actually has that goal, or else everyone would forego all kinds of consumption. Also, no one would buy dirt in the first place, by definition, unless he mistakenly believed that dirt somehow had great (market) value.

A trade can be beneficial even though someone "loses out" from the perspective of the homo economicus. Good thing we don't take this perspective, because it is utterly irrelevant to both ethics and economics.