3 ms·
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
by kneebonian 3y 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 3y agoThe 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 3y agoBut 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