3 ms·

I'm not a fan of forms of socialism revolving around centrally planned economies; however, it seems to me that we also don't have any reason to believe that a m

I'm not a fan of forms of socialism revolving around centrally planned economies; however, it seems to me that we also don't have any reason to believe that a market economy can accurately assign prices. The free market argument that the value of something is equal to it's price seems to me to be begging the question. It's essentially saying "the an object's market price equals it's value because I choose to say that an object's value is it's market price."

kneebonian 4y ago
That's pretty much the only real value though is what someone is willing to pay for it. To quote the Prince of Egypt "A lake of gold in the desert sand is less than a cool fresh spring, and to one lost sheep a shepherd boy is greater than the richest king." Ultimately the value of something is what someone is willing to assign to it, nothing has inherent value as far as humanity has been able to determine or agree on, so instead the market allows everyone the freedom to value whatever they would like at whatever they would like. But if you have an alternative way of reconciling the water diamond paradox I'd be interested in hearing it.
- harimau777 4y ago
  The problem is that the market doesn't actually give people the freedom to price things in accordance with the value it represents to them because people do not start out with equal ability to pay. For example, a rich person may be willing to pay a higher price for a second home even though it is likely less valuable to them then it would be to someone without a home.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    But that is caused by existing economic inequality, not the free market itself. If the rest of your society is organized in ways that e.g. prevent massive unlimited accumulation of wealth, the disparity between what people can afford is much smaller - and then the market can easily be more optimal than any centralized scheme. Indeed, one could argue that capitalism (which explicitly allows for unlimited accumulation of capital) is detrimental to genuinely free markets for this exact reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market%20anti-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market%20anti-capitalism
Nasrudith 4y ago
The notion relies upon fundamentally faulty assumptions about universal fixedness to pricing, namely that it exists at all. It is frankly, insane to operate under it but because of Marx's and his disciple's fixation upon labor as a basis of economic value they stalwartly refuse to see what is right in front of their face. Water by the river is far cheaper than water in the Sahara. Hauling the water to the Sahara isn't guaranteed profit however because of the lack of people in the Sahara in the first place to serve the exchange, however.
- harimau777 4y ago
  I agree that things don't necessarily have fixed values. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that price is an accurate reflection of that value. Food has more value to someone who is starving than to someone who is well fed; even if the well fed person is willing and able to pay more for it.
  - hgomersall 4y ago
    It's an interesting idea that perhaps peoples' financial offers for goods and services should be normalised by their financial wealth.
marcosdumay 4y ago
> a market economy can['t] accurately assign prices Well, that is meaningless unless you define what "accurately" means here. This word is carrying a huge amount of weight, and isn't capable of that at all. (And when doing that, keep in mind that "price" is not "value", and there is no reason at all to equate those two.)

kneebonian 4y ago

That's pretty much the only real value though is what someone is willing to pay for it. To quote the Prince of Egypt "A lake of gold in the desert sand is less than a cool fresh spring, and to one lost sheep a shepherd boy is greater than the richest king." Ultimately the value of something is what someone is willing to assign to it, nothing has inherent value as far as humanity has been able to determine or agree on, so instead the market allows everyone the freedom to value whatever they would like at whatever they would like. But if you have an alternative way of reconciling the water diamond paradox I'd be interested in hearing it.

harimau777 4y ago
The problem is that the market doesn't actually give people the freedom to price things in accordance with the value it represents to them because people do not start out with equal ability to pay. For example, a rich person may be willing to pay a higher price for a second home even though it is likely less valuable to them then it would be to someone without a home.
- int_19h 4y ago
  But that is caused by existing economic inequality, not the free market itself. If the rest of your society is organized in ways that e.g. prevent massive unlimited accumulation of wealth, the disparity between what people can afford is much smaller - and then the market can easily be more optimal than any centralized scheme. Indeed, one could argue that capitalism (which explicitly allows for unlimited accumulation of capital) is detrimental to genuinely free markets for this exact reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market%20anti-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market%20anti-capitalism

Nasrudith 4y ago

The notion relies upon fundamentally faulty assumptions about universal fixedness to pricing, namely that it exists at all. It is frankly, insane to operate under it but because of Marx's and his disciple's fixation upon labor as a basis of economic value they stalwartly refuse to see what is right in front of their face. Water by the river is far cheaper than water in the Sahara. Hauling the water to the Sahara isn't guaranteed profit however because of the lack of people in the Sahara in the first place to serve the exchange, however.

harimau777 4y ago
I agree that things don't necessarily have fixed values. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that price is an accurate reflection of that value. Food has more value to someone who is starving than to someone who is well fed; even if the well fed person is willing and able to pay more for it.
- hgomersall 4y ago
  It's an interesting idea that perhaps peoples' financial offers for goods and services should be normalised by their financial wealth.

marcosdumay 4y ago

> a market economy can['t] accurately assign prices Well, that is meaningless unless you define what "accurately" means here. This word is carrying a huge amount of weight, and isn't capable of that at all. (And when doing that, keep in mind that "price" is not "value", and there is no reason at all to equate those two.)