Value does not come from price.
A truism.
Then why did you assert the opposite?
And with "scarcity as vapid gedanken,"
Scarcity, apparently as you conceive the meaning of it, does not come from price. Hence, one could equate value with scarcity, but one could not show that to be true. No one could challenge the claim that unicorns = fairies.
Value comes from unicorns? Sure.
In philosophy, there's value in unicorns.
Then define it [scarcity].
I did already!
I missed it. Could you give it again?
I would by taking a trip down to the coin shop. Besides, money, however one would like to define it, is not a "conceptual variable". I can't transact, represent, or hold conceptual variables.
I would suggest you consider the conceptual leap necessary for a vendor to accept the first bank script in lieu of coin.
There's no conceptual leap needed in that exchange. Are you saying that substitution requires a conceptual leap?
Or, perhaps you believe the acceptance of credit is hardwired into humans?
The creation of credit does require a conceptual leap since there's an exchange in it between something abstract and something concrete. Bank script is a piece of paper, which specifies what is to be delivered is concrete. But a promise to deliver something concrete without specifying exactly what is to be delivered requires a conceptual leap.
No "that which" has an effective substitution since any substitute depends on an arbitrary utility function which can't necessarily be made agreeable to any other "that which". Without perfect agreeability, the market does not clear.
You're requiring utility functions to be asymptotic before a transaction occurs
Before? In any event it is inferred that utility functions close as a theoretical requirement of equilibrium, yet no transaction could be designated as the one that achieved equilibrium, because a transaction is done by an individual whose utility function isn't the utility function of any other or of all others as a group.
- that's a false requirement. Asymptotic utility functions simply define a point of equilibrium, a pareto optimal point.
No one is satisfied when equilibrium is reached because equilibrium only represents a state of acceptability since all participants have different utility functions and so no final, perfect, agreement on the adequacy of substitutability. The market fluctuates.
Where utility functions are not asymptotic transactions still occur so long as both participants are better off afterwards.
But participants never perceive themselves to be better off afterwards, else, transactions would stop. It is only theoretic that utility functions close while in reality, utility functions always remain open. There is no perfect agreeability and no market can ever be considered to be in actual equilibrium, else the market would stop.
I pointed out how a price can arise with no demand.
How?
Demand doesn't exist until a transaction takes place, but price can exist before a transaction takes place.
The cutting point here is that price arises in a way not expected and in a way which can't be anticipated.
I think you mean prices fluctuate in a way not expected and in a way which can't be anticipated.
I mean arise. You can have a price without any previous transactions. Fluctuations require transactions.
Say was saying that price can arise where none previously existed because there was no demand at any supply until any supply is increased, and this can occur without any demand.
False.
You didn't understand what I stated.
Say's comments to Malthus concerned the impossibility of general gluts.
You missed what "impossibility of general gluts" means. Quoting Say, "Thus the mere circumstance of creation of one product immediately opens a vent for other products.". Note "the mere creation", not how the creation of one product is materially connected to another product, is the point I elucidated.
As interpreted today, Say's law essentially states that every act of supply is an act of demand - since the motivation to supply is a demand.
False. Typical demand management Keynesian putting an inference on the original concept whose derivation puts in demand as primary. In fact, the inference exactly misses Say's point and the point behind all supply side economics.
And why do have tomatoes on display?
To make money. |
