4 ms·
I'd argue that "free market" pricing in general is. The attitude that "something is valuable if people are willing to pay for it" is being increasingly overfitt
by nicoburns 4y ago
I'd argue that "free market" pricing in general is. The attitude that "something is valuable if people are willing to pay for it" is being increasingly overfitted.
- Phiwise_ 4y agoOverfitted to what? If the whole point of economics in a moral sense is to get people more value, than what does the question of if person A will buy item 1 at a higher price than person B for item 2 for better or worse reasons get the average person/company except for a distraction from their goal? Make item 1, sell it to person A, and go enjoy your more prosperity than you would have gotten for selling item 2 to person B. This proposal needs to be much more concrete to mean anything.
- nicoburns 4y agoOverfitted to the current legal context, market conditions, regulations, etc. A classic example would be a company which outcompetes its rivals by working around regulation that companies in that sector are subject to. That enables it to gain a competitive advantage within the system it's operating in, but is pessimisation rather than an optimisation when looking at the bigger picture and longer timescales.
- BurningFrog 4y agoBy definition, the monetary value of something is what people are willing to pay for it.
- ummonk 4y agoYes but that's not the same as the more useful (no pun intended) definition of value - namely, utility.
- BurningFrog 4y agoThey're both useful, for different purposes. I recommend being clear about which definition is used, rather than trying to enforce one meaning should always be used.