4 ms·

I agree and I acknowledged this ("the buyer is getting whatever good or service they paid for"). But I still tend to frame it as the buyer having incurred a cos

by rdiddly 10y ago

I agree and I acknowledged this ("the buyer is getting whatever good or service they paid for"). But I still tend to frame it as the buyer having incurred a cost, not having profited. The seller is the one who ends up with money in hand, that can be invested elsewhere. The buyer usually ends up with something that either starts off with no resale value, or that depreciates, or that (if you're poor) does nothing but keep you alive -- like a roof over your head let's say. Mind you, since that last category consists of things one really needs a lot, it makes one that much more eager to engage in the trade and pay the stated price. If you can afford to walk away from a negotiation, your position is a lot stronger.

WalterBright 10y ago
Consider the farmer and the blacksmith. The farmer makes more corn than he can eat, and the blacksmith shoes the horses. The blacksmith trades shoeing the farmer's horse for corn to eat. They are both better off. There is no buyer/seller. Money is just a medium for making trading more efficient. A "buyer" and "seller" is an artificial construct, and framing things as the "seller" always gets the upper hand has no real basis. I buy things and sell things all the time. It's pretty clear that the seller has no inherent advantage.
- rdiddly 10y ago
  In barter there is no seller's advantage because yeah, there's no seller. In a monetary transaction, there is, because one party ends up with money, which is more than just a medium of exchange - it's capital. You can easily rent it out and get back not only your money, but a bit extra. You could do that with corn, too, but you would have to set up the arrangement yourself, whereas the mechanisms already exist to do that with cash.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    It is just a medium of exchange. It's all money is. I doubt I'll convince you with rhetoric, so I suggest you try doing a little selling. The experience should be pretty convincing that it doesn't give you any advantage.
    - rdiddly 10y ago
      Well this is funny. Believe it or not, my attempts to sell something nobody wanted are actually the very thing that made me think the way I do. I had something I couldn't find a buyer for -- something specific with only as much value as any buyer would care to assign. But my potential customers had something everybody wants including me -- a medium of exchange as you say, that can be easily converted into anything else. Selling is harder than buying because what you're asking for (people's money) is more flexible and reliably worth something to a greater number of people. If you find a market, a bunch of people who want what you've got, more than they want money, you've scored a coup!

by rdiddly 10y ago

WalterBright 10y ago

Consider the farmer and the blacksmith. The farmer makes more corn than he can eat, and the blacksmith shoes the horses. The blacksmith trades shoeing the farmer's horse for corn to eat. They are both better off. There is no buyer/seller. Money is just a medium for making trading more efficient. A "buyer" and "seller" is an artificial construct, and framing things as the "seller" always gets the upper hand has no real basis. I buy things and sell things all the time. It's pretty clear that the seller has no inherent advantage.

rdiddly 10y ago
In barter there is no seller's advantage because yeah, there's no seller. In a monetary transaction, there is, because one party ends up with money, which is more than just a medium of exchange - it's capital. You can easily rent it out and get back not only your money, but a bit extra. You could do that with corn, too, but you would have to set up the arrangement yourself, whereas the mechanisms already exist to do that with cash.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  It is just a medium of exchange. It's all money is. I doubt I'll convince you with rhetoric, so I suggest you try doing a little selling. The experience should be pretty convincing that it doesn't give you any advantage.
  - rdiddly 10y ago
    Well this is funny. Believe it or not, my attempts to sell something nobody wanted are actually the very thing that made me think the way I do. I had something I couldn't find a buyer for -- something specific with only as much value as any buyer would care to assign. But my potential customers had something everybody wants including me -- a medium of exchange as you say, that can be easily converted into anything else. Selling is harder than buying because what you're asking for (people's money) is more flexible and reliably worth something to a greater number of people. If you find a market, a bunch of people who want what you've got, more than they want money, you've scored a coup!