-
Math is a construct of logic, and when we're dealing with something that involves concrete data, it is highly useful to display that data in the most logical way, aka math. If you think math is some whimsical fiction that has no relevance, pertainance, or usefulness then you can tell that to the man who landed on the moon. Science depends on math
-
That's an interesting point, so we're disagreeing on what "value means" well since the aim of my post wasn't at all hinged on whether or not something has intrinsic value, I'll let you have that one. Though I disagree to a point. The main point was that the price of the tulips was far greater than the actual value (yes value
-
I agree the value is subjective to a high degree, but it's *not* arbitrary. It's based on how much people want it and how oftenb, and usually that demand is informed because of some sort of value they get from it, so, logically, it has a finite value greater than zero. A value that can only be described as intrinsic in nature. But I see your
-
If they only demand sex from person A, and person A is unwilling to give it to them, they cannot satisfy that demand and must seek out a substitute good. I can see why you might think the price is "infinity" but it isn't infinity. I guess you could say that it's undefined. But basically what you're trying to do is find an intersection
-
Intrinsic value is usually in reference to money, for example old stone boulders or coins or modern paper represent far more value than their intrinsic value, so we generally describe money as having "no intrinsic value" but in reality the items themselves have some small amount, because they are physical matter. I could break my stone boulder
-
Spide, I said almost that exact same thing in my original post. I'm not here to say that the austrian approach is wrong, I'm here to say that all points of view have value and are all attempting to model reality, but that isn't completely achievable yet. I'm not advocating a certain school or a certain method, rather attention should
-
Um. Are you seriously arguing that something that pleases someone doesn't have intrinsic value?
-
Nirgraham You said I misunderstand my own position. Forgive the candor but that's a really stupid thing to say. Whether or not I am correct is fine for you to debate, but I'm not arguing with myself. Don't be ridiculous. You seem unable to accept the theoretical idea that only one firm could exist in a market. Since you apparently don't
-
Not correct, peopel admire them for their aesthetic beauty. But you're distracting us from the main point. Which was that their market value became ridiculously greater than their actual value.
-
I'm using the textbook definition of market failure. I'm really not sure what your example is trying to say. So I'm going to break it apart and maybe you can help me see how it is at all relevant. "you are describing failure in a non-technical way." I'm describing it in the most technical way available. I didn't invent