I'll agree. I thinks it's one of the unfortunate sides to capitalism when unchecked. There's no system to regulate what has value other than what people want, and what people want is not always or even often what is most constructive or even intelligent. People's perceptions are easily skewed by marketing and propaganda, and sports is a perfect example of how you can convince people the importance of something that otherwise doesn't merit the attention it gets. Diamonds are another great example. Things everyone says are worth money, so everyone charges money, so everyone else assumes the value is worth the cost. Silliness.
People don't assume that the value is worth the cost, they agree that the value is worth the cost. People don't buy a diamond and think "What the fuck, this isn't worth what I paid, I regret buying this."
People don't agree. Diamonds have notoriously crappy resale value. It's all marketing and price fixing. As a gen diamonds aren't near as rare as other cheaper stones and their touted benifits can be found in greater measure with less draw backs as well elsewhere. Before the 1940's when these adds started a very small percent of engagement jewelry was diamond. Now- there's a sales mantra about perceived value. That you can't rip someone off. That a person pays what they think a thing is worth and that thing isn't worth the same to all people- they buy a thing and are happy, and only feel cheated if they find out someone else paid less even though 5 minutes before they were happy with what they spend or they wouldn't have spent it. There's some truth there- but not when you're buying something because of artificial demand. I know few people who are naturally drawn to diamonds over any other "pretty" clear stone if they didn't know which was which.
That's not a sales mantra, that a basis of capitalism, that a product's price is an agreement between the buyer and the seller. The buyer and the seller agree on the price, and that's the only agreement that matters. (assuming there's no deception on either side and everything's in good faith, of course.)
Ok, so to make sure I understand- perceived value is a basis of capitalism, but only applies in good faith if we make certain assumptions that the value of that item is being represented fairly and without deception?
What other kind of value is there other than perceived?
And yes the value being legitimate is based on a meeting of the minds of the involved parties, which can't happen if one side (or both) is lying.
So- we can't assign an absolute value, and we can't agree on a value unless we know the honest details of the transaction, butbwe cant know an absolute truth- so we are assuming? Hence my original post.
"we can't assign an absolute value"
Correct.
"we can't agree on a value unless we know the honest details of the transaction"
You can't legitimately agree, yes.
"we cant know an absolute truth- so we are assuming?"
I'm not sure what you mean, could you elaborate or reword that?
If there IS an absolute value, there is no possible way we could ever know or agree, even if neither party were lying for their benefit. Therefore, even our best guess on with all available metrics to get as close as possible is forever an assumption.
Thank you @funkmasterrex. @garlog- that is the idea. I'm referencing the first post that started our discussion in which I said people assume the value of a thing and you contended there wasn't assumption but agreement. To agree we must make assumptions. Those assumptions are largely based on what we are told about a certain thing. When we add things like advertising, artificial demand and other forms of market manipulation and supply control, and perhaps most importantly a segment where there is no one able or willing to compete- we are left in a market where the seller controls the market. In the ultimate sense people could still say no- but some things are culturally integrated to the point saying no essentially excludes one from the social order. For instance you can live your whole life without credit, but will be severely disadvantaged. Commercialized holiday and life events etc. marketing or integrating into the fabric of society creates a pseudo neccesity which people will buy.
I get what you're saying but I disagree on the severity because I don't think people are as beholden to society as you make them out to be, so I also disagree that the seller controls the market.
Education on things like the effects of advertisement would be the best way of dealing with this, I think.
Also, I personally disagree with your example because I myself choose to absolutely minimize my dependence on credit and don't consider myself excluded from society.
In a lot of situations the seller does control the market in things absolutely required and also in the very luxury stuff the first cause it's damn near impossible to get necessities and they know they can make almost whatever profit they want and the second because people as a whole are extremely stupid and pay a thousand dollars for a phone and furniture can be anywhere from 300 to 1400 percent profit because people don't know any better than to pay the prices they set as they haven't been informed.
Health care I'd say certainly is. If they tell you cancer treatment is going to cost $10k+ out of pocket it's that or die. It's great @garlog doesn't feel left out for lack of credit. I guess they e never had to run credit for a rental car, a new apartment or room to rent, or a house to buy. I'd imagine than means they/their parents are in a good economic position or a great location. Too bad most people aren't that lucky. Too bad not everyone has $200-500 deposit for a phone line because they don't have credit, or other cash costs associated. I'd love too have the $60-100k cash for a deposit on a home let alone the $400k+ to just pay cash. To a lot of people that $300+ hotel deposit could make a trip impossible, or the $6-10k to bury a dead loved one.
I thought you were talking about charging a credit card or using a line of credit.
Building credit isn't even expensive, what does that have to do with what we're talking about?
For the second time in the same thread I shall keep track and help you sort through what you have said. I had said that some things like credit were not strictly speaking necessities but were ingrained to a point which asides disadvantage one effectively excluded from the social order by not participating. You then contended you disagreed- that you choose to "absolutely minimize" your dependence on credit and do not feel excluded." If we define "absolutely minimize" that would be- none, save for credit required for life saving treatment or care. If we define absolutely minimize as to reduce to only what is most prudent and necessary within certain debt ratios and for future security- that's literally what I just said, you don't disagree, and you don't feel excluded because you aren't someone not living without, you are participating in the system, just less than some others.
The whole premise of me saying "I personally disagree with your example because I myself choose to absolutely minimize my dependence on credit and don't consider myself excluded from society.", was based on my misinterpretation of what you meant, so it doesn't actually apply at all.
I now disagree with the example because building credit isn't a product that's bought and sold, so I don't see what it has to do with what we're talking about in the first place.
Credit is a product. It's packaged debt. Those debts are bought, sold and traded for profit. The credit default swaps that helped tank the market are only one example. Banks and other institutions routinely use debt as a commodity. When you get a loan or line of credit- a great deal of the time your loan is literally shopped to different institutions. Those institutions make offers on what they'll buy the debt at, and those help set the terms of your loan. You yourself can also shop for loan providers- banks, credit card companies etc. and look for the best terms; and sometimes you shop each other. Most banks even call their loan portfolios their financial products, if that makes it any more direct.
.... .... .... how..... do..... you.... build.... credit..... without..... monetary..... credit.... Ok- credit as in: money lent with or without collateral by a bank or underwriter authorized and accredited to do so, who assumes liability for any debt incurred extended as a line of "credit" with which you may negotiate in goods or services which have a monetary value.
Okay, so the actual loan itself.
Yes, I limit my use of loaned money a lot, and don't feel excluded from society because of it.
Are we on the same page?
By the gist of this conversation, I'm guessing likely not. To be clear- "building credit" is a loan, and limiting something "a lot" is not the same as not participating in it. E.g.: if Jimmy drinks a keg of beer by himself, and you only drink a 6 pack, you have limited your intake compared to his greatly, and would not feel excluded from the party at all. If your boss has 1 drink at lunch, and you do not, you may be excluded. It's also important to note that feeling excluded and being excluded are two different things. Is it semantics? Yes. But 90% of this conversation has been semantics so I just assumed long ago we had stopped talking about anything else.
How much is a life worth? How much is human potential worth? Doctors, teachers, fire fighters, paramedics, nurses, police, military and more literally save, protect, and foster lives. In that sense how could we ever pay them enough? In another sense though, how could we afford to pay all the people we need as a society that well? How do we measure performance and need to ballance pay across those fields? How do we avoid turning it into a numbers game about hitting metrics and slacking off where it hurts your earnings? How would we discourage money seekers from joining those ranks if they were so well paid, when these jobs need people who do it because they care to make a difference and not just punching a clock and cashing a check? I'll certainly agree though that in my mind we have skewed values on what we pay various people, with frivolous or insignificant fluff jobs getting way over paid compared to people who build and maintain our lives and society, the machines and methods etc.
As far as I know, usually yes. The surgeons will take an hour or two's nap and food break or whatever while someone else cycles in but for the most part they're actually standing there surgeoning the shit out of the patient.
At least, that's what I've been lead to believe from the stories I've read and heard of.
And yes the value being legitimate is based on a meeting of the minds of the involved parties, which can't happen if one side (or both) is lying.
Correct.
"we can't agree on a value unless we know the honest details of the transaction"
You can't legitimately agree, yes.
"we cant know an absolute truth- so we are assuming?"
I'm not sure what you mean, could you elaborate or reword that?
Education on things like the effects of advertisement would be the best way of dealing with this, I think.
Also, I personally disagree with your example because I myself choose to absolutely minimize my dependence on credit and don't consider myself excluded from society.
Building credit isn't even expensive, what does that have to do with what we're talking about?
I now disagree with the example because building credit isn't a product that's bought and sold, so I don't see what it has to do with what we're talking about in the first place.
Yes, I limit my use of loaned money a lot, and don't feel excluded from society because of it.
Are we on the same page?
At least, that's what I've been lead to believe from the stories I've read and heard of.