Re: thank you, price \'gougers\'
[ QUOTE ]
jesus, come on i explictly said that was the main moral principal, i'm not capable of coming up with a complete solution for how economics should work, but there is a legitamate question to be asked here, and neither you or I are going to succinctly and sufficently wrap it up here today.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's very succinct - I determine what my property is worth to me, given the alternative uses.
I have ice cream cones. I like to consume them myself (or maybe I just like collecting them, it doesn't really matter), but I'm willing to part with them in exchage for 10 hot dogs. I find a guy that has a bunch of hot dogs, and he's willing to give me 10 hot dogs for an ice cream cone. He values the ice cream cone more than 10 hot dogs, and I value 10 hot dogs more than an ice cream cone. I'd prefer to get 15 hot dogs per ice cream cone, and he'd prefer to get 2 ice cream cones for 10 hot dogs, but we negotiate and eventually we agree on a trade.
Who could possibly object to this?
How can some third party justify forcing me to only offer my ice cream cones in exchange for 5 hot dogs? Can he go further and force me to actually conduct transactions at this rate, or can he only prevent me from making transactions at other rates? Can he prevent me from eating the ice cream cones myself?
Why is it any different if we substitute some shiny metal or fancy pieces of paper for either hot dogs or ice cream cones?
|