3 ms·
This argument doesn't follow: if I create something of value, and give it away for free, it still creates value even if no money changes hands. > $17k to entir
by joshuamorton 7y ago
This argument doesn't follow: if I create something of value, and give it away for free, it still creates value even if no money changes hands.
> $17k to entirely quit search engines and being ready to pay $17k a year to use them.
No, economically speaking these are equivalent constructs. Of the value of a service is X, then I would be willing to pay X for access to the service, and similarly be willing to be paid X to lose access to the service.
If people are willing to pay for a search engine, just because they aren't, doesn't mean they wouldn't be willing to. It just means that there's deadweight loss somewhere, or in this case that Google isn't operating at maximum short term profitability.
- kd5bjo 7y agoExcept that $17k is a large enough portion of most people’s income that there may be a significant difference in marginal utility between adding and subtracting it: $43k vs $60k looks very different from $60k vs $77k.
- notpeter 7y ago> No, economically speaking these are equivalent constructs. "Economically speaking" ignores that we are human beings with biases. There is significant experimental evidence our brains don't perceive them as equal. Google "Prospect Theory" for more.
- freediver 7y ago>No, economically speaking these are equivalent constructs. I am willing to get paid $10k to get rid of cancer, and in no scenario I would be willing to pay $10k to get one. It is clearly an asymmetric construct economically.
- joshuamorton 7y agoYou're misunderstanding: 17000 is the marginal value of a search engine. 10k is not the marginal value if cancer. If you find the marginal value, then you should be willing to pay that price (but no more) to trade for the thing. People are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for cancer treatment, so 10k clearly isn't the marginal value.