-
At the point of that exchange it's a direct exchange, not an indirect exchange. A is collecting blue rocks and consuming red rocks. A then exchanges blue rocks to B, this is a direct exchange. The only point I am making here is that there is no indirect exchange, only direct exchanges. That being said, it would be an indirect exchange if A purchased
-
I am with Tex on this one in that it is still a direct exchange. No goods are changing hands where the recipient of the goods has no intention of consuming them but rather using them later in another exchange. Since stockpiling doesn't involve an exchange, the guy hording blue rocks isn't using them as money but rather just stockpiling something
-
OK, so a minimum market size of 3 actors and a minimum of 1 actor must value the good outside of exchange. This seems reasonable to me.
-
Can you elaborate on why 2 people need to value it for consumption? What about my rock collector example (only 1 person valued the rocks for consumption) creates a problem?
-
[quote user="Tex2002ans"] The minimum amount of people needed for indirect exchange = 3: http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap3a.asp [/quote] As I mentioned in a follow-up reply, it seems my original question was misinterpreted. I am not interested in the market size required for indirect exchange, I am interested in the minimum number of people
-
[quote user="Tex2002ans"] You cannot then introduce a worthless paper and have everyone begin trading it for food, the paper HAS NO VALUE. [/quote] I am not suggesting a worthless piece of paper, I am suggesting a valuable rock. In my example the rock is only valued by one person so my question is, does the regression theorem require a minimum
-
I just realized that my question may have caused some confusion. I specifically want to know the minimum population size of the people who value a good for non-exchange reasons. I am not interested in the minimum population size of the market that is exchanging the good, only the population size of the people who value the good (which is a subset of
-
[quote user="Ricky James Moore II"] All actions are exchanges but money is a product of catallactic exchange, it doesn't exist in an autistic exchange. There is no medium of exchange for the autistic actor, only want-satisfaction. [/quote] I am not sure what this has to do with the minimum population size required for the regression theorem
-
If I know that the rock collector wants rocks I could go out and search for/mine/harvest rocks that he will like because I know I can trade them for food. In this case only the rock collector values the rocks outside of a medium of exchange but I now value them because they have exchange value for food. What makes this example fall apart? Why couldn't
-
Why 2 instead of 1 (as in the rock collector example)?