Value does not come from price.
A truism. And with "scarcity as vapid gedanken," then:
 Message 16020409
Value comes from unicorns? Sure.
Then define it [scarcity].
I did already!
Glass Steagall was broken because the existing forms of money fractured into many indeterminate pieces.....
True.
and this has led to big problems now.
False. Or, true given the circumstance of no free market in money.
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. Or, perhaps you believe the acceptance of credit is hardwired into humans?
AG's comments seem obtuse since none of those forms or their components can be separated and controlled. That's why gold is becoming of interest. When money loses its definition under duress then its buying power is lost. People then scramble after gold since everyone knows it's a unique form of money that can't be redefined.
Good money drives out bad.
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 - that's a false requirement. Asymptotic utility functions simply define a point of equilibrium, a pareto optimal point. Where utility functions are not asymptotic transactions still occur so long as both participants are better off afterwards. However, non-asymptotic utility functions would indicate a pareto enhancing transaction is theoretically possible. We can note the markets adoption of an easily divided good as a transaction medium. As I've stated many times, if a transaction exists that could theoretically enhance utility the market will attempt to enable that transaction.
You said that "prices imply scarcity" and by that you mean that some price arises because the entity priced has limited availability and existent demand. Without the two no price would arise. I pointed out how a price can arise with no demand.
Really? How?
The cutting point here is that price arises in a way not expected and in a way which can't be anticipated.
It's correct to say prices fluctuate in a way not expected and in a way which can't be anticipated.
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. Say's comments to Malthus concerned the impossibility of general gluts. 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.
You see this phenomenon in the stock exchange tape of atomic actions all the time. If someone books more away, price away is affected. The instantaneous market may be idle, but price away changes due to the occurrence of increased size away. The potential of action is increased, but that potential is not reflecting any change of state of demand or supply. You sell tomatoes. You have a few on display. They don't sell. You increase substantially the number you have on display. They start selling.
And why does he have tomatoes on display? |
