3 ms·
It's not weird, but incomplete. It is broadly captured in the Economics concept of "willingness to pay", loosely the maximum price someone or some firm would be
by greggyb 2y ago
It's not weird, but incomplete. It is broadly captured in the Economics concept of "willingness to pay", loosely the maximum price someone or some firm would be willing to pay for something of benefit to them.
This contrasts with "willingness to accept", loosely the minimum compensation someone or some firm would accept to produce a good or service (or accept some negative thing).
Neither of these is sufficient to determine the price of something precisely, but, in aggregate, these concepts bound the market price for some good or service.
- vasco 2y agoI agree I wasn't super precise, I thought it was enough to show that pricing work equal or close to equal to value produced is unlikely as long as there's many people available to do it. In my example of the fire department if nobody is really coming and you have no insurance or other way to save stuff you would indeed pay a lot. From what I read these were the dynamics in Roman times.
- mrec 2y agoIf you're thinking of Marcus Crassus, the dynamic there was that he'd offer to buy your burning property from you at a steep discount, and would only put the fire out if you agreed.
- kqr 2y ago> "willingness to pay" [and] "willingness to accept" Often abbreviated somewhat sloppily into demand and supply.