2 ms·

Why would I value an apple higher than what a grocer is willing to sell? I wouldn't.

SamReidHughes 12y ago
Because you bought it? Clearly it has more value to you than the money.
harryh 12y ago
Because that's what consumer surplus is. Look it up. Without it you'd never bother to buy anything because you would gain no value from the transaction.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  You're just stating things without making any argument. I am aware of consumer surplus, thank you very much. You said that I value something at 60 cents and the seller values it at 40 cents, therefore I will buy it at 50 cents. Not only is your simple linear model absurdly reductionist, it's just ignorant. If a grocer is willing to sell at 40 cents, I would never pay a 50% markup when I wouldn't have to, your assertion that I would notwithstanding. I would just pay the 40 cents, and therefore the only objective measurement of how what I valued it at would come out at 40 cents. You stating that I actually value it at 60 cents is just you trying to fit a scenario to your fictional model.
  - harryh 12y ago
    Are you dumb? I just made up the numbers. I never said anything was linear and even though the grocer is willing to sell at 40 cents he doesn't because then he wouldn't be able to meet supply so he raises the price until he can. Maybe the real life numbers are 45, 50 & 55. Maybe they're 34, 37 & 50. Maybe you really fucking love apples and it's 34, 37 & 5000 in which case go nuts, buy up the whole orchard, and keep all the doctors away for all time. Maybe those numbers aren't even close because what exactly does an apple cost these days I don't even know exactly. But the point holds. There is a price at which the transactions happens. Somewhere below that is the producer willingness to sell. The difference between those numbers is the producer surplus. Somewhere above the price is the consumer willingness to pay. The difference between that number and the price is the consumer surplus. Go find any economics 101 textbook in the known world and you'll have a downward sloping demand curve, and an upward sloping supply curve. They intersect at a market price. Then you get some shaded in areas for the producer and consumer surplus. If you don't know what one of these graphs looks like then you aren't qualified to participate in any discussion ever about what things should cost. Just shut up and go back to writing shitty software using the worst programming language in general use today.
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      Oh wow, u mad bro? Supply/demand curves are literally 4th grade curriculum where I come from. So yeah, mastered that shit 20+ years ago. Thanks for assuming though. You've gone off the rails and are now confusing 'cost' with 'worth' or 'value'. We can only determine a 'value' or 'worth' when an actual transaction occurs. You can't just extrapolate out on a model curve and expect it to hold in the real world, no matter what your theory tells you. Bottom line is, if a grocer is currently asking 40 cents for an apple, I will transact at that price no matter how much higher I 'value' that apple. I wouldn't pay 60 cents for an apple that a grocer is selling for 40 cents. I wouldn't pay 50 cents for it either. BTW, ECMAScript is poised to take over the world. Better strap in.
      - michas 12y ago
        Economic 101 course for you. In your original comment you said: > By definition, profit is extracting more than the 'worth' of something. You are terribly wrong, because, by definition, there is no such thing as objective worth of something you buy. There is only subjective worth and it is different for different people. And that is the sole things that enables us to trade goods at all. Example: what is worth more: 5$ or a pack of ciggaretes? non-smoking shop owner probably will choose 5$, average smoker will choose pack of ciggaretes. And they DO choose that every day - every time you buy something you prove that the thing you bought is more valuable to you than the money you spent. Otherwise you wouldn't buy it. So, if two people make transaction volunteerly the price paid is always fair, and both people end up thinking that they traded something less valuable for something more valuable. That's called "mutually beneficial" :)

Because you bought it? Clearly it has more value to you than the money.

Because that's what consumer surplus is. Look it up. Without it you'd never bother to buy anything because you would gain no value from the transaction.

jsprogrammer 12y ago
You're just stating things without making any argument. I am aware of consumer surplus, thank you very much. You said that I value something at 60 cents and the seller values it at 40 cents, therefore I will buy it at 50 cents. Not only is your simple linear model absurdly reductionist, it's just ignorant. If a grocer is willing to sell at 40 cents, I would never pay a 50% markup when I wouldn't have to, your assertion that I would notwithstanding. I would just pay the 40 cents, and therefore the only objective measurement of how what I valued it at would come out at 40 cents. You stating that I actually value it at 60 cents is just you trying to fit a scenario to your fictional model.
- harryh 12y ago
  Are you dumb? I just made up the numbers. I never said anything was linear and even though the grocer is willing to sell at 40 cents he doesn't because then he wouldn't be able to meet supply so he raises the price until he can. Maybe the real life numbers are 45, 50 & 55. Maybe they're 34, 37 & 50. Maybe you really fucking love apples and it's 34, 37 & 5000 in which case go nuts, buy up the whole orchard, and keep all the doctors away for all time. Maybe those numbers aren't even close because what exactly does an apple cost these days I don't even know exactly. But the point holds. There is a price at which the transactions happens. Somewhere below that is the producer willingness to sell. The difference between those numbers is the producer surplus. Somewhere above the price is the consumer willingness to pay. The difference between that number and the price is the consumer surplus. Go find any economics 101 textbook in the known world and you'll have a downward sloping demand curve, and an upward sloping supply curve. They intersect at a market price. Then you get some shaded in areas for the producer and consumer surplus. If you don't know what one of these graphs looks like then you aren't qualified to participate in any discussion ever about what things should cost. Just shut up and go back to writing shitty software using the worst programming language in general use today.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    Oh wow, u mad bro? Supply/demand curves are literally 4th grade curriculum where I come from. So yeah, mastered that shit 20+ years ago. Thanks for assuming though. You've gone off the rails and are now confusing 'cost' with 'worth' or 'value'. We can only determine a 'value' or 'worth' when an actual transaction occurs. You can't just extrapolate out on a model curve and expect it to hold in the real world, no matter what your theory tells you. Bottom line is, if a grocer is currently asking 40 cents for an apple, I will transact at that price no matter how much higher I 'value' that apple. I wouldn't pay 60 cents for an apple that a grocer is selling for 40 cents. I wouldn't pay 50 cents for it either. BTW, ECMAScript is poised to take over the world. Better strap in.
    - michas 12y ago
      Economic 101 course for you. In your original comment you said: > By definition, profit is extracting more than the 'worth' of something. You are terribly wrong, because, by definition, there is no such thing as objective worth of something you buy. There is only subjective worth and it is different for different people. And that is the sole things that enables us to trade goods at all. Example: what is worth more: 5$ or a pack of ciggaretes? non-smoking shop owner probably will choose 5$, average smoker will choose pack of ciggaretes. And they DO choose that every day - every time you buy something you prove that the thing you bought is more valuable to you than the money you spent. Otherwise you wouldn't buy it. So, if two people make transaction volunteerly the price paid is always fair, and both people end up thinking that they traded something less valuable for something more valuable. That's called "mutually beneficial" :)