Ad hominem . The analogy works. Fact people are fat irrespective of others.Quite clearly you have no clue about the free market. Allow me to educate you on why Marxists and "Capitalist" (Which was a Marx term BTW), we prefer freedom lovers or some variation of freedom.
The subjective theory of value (or theory of subjective value) is an economic theory of value that identifies worth as being based on the wants and needs of the members of a society, as opposed to value being inherent to an object.
It holds that to possess value an object must be useful, with the extent of that value dependent upon the ability of an object to satisfy the wants of any given individual.
The subjective theory contrasts with intrinsic theories of value, such as the labor theory of value(Which was Marx's theory) which holds that the economic value of a thing is contingent upon how much labor was - necessarily - exerted in producing it - under the condition, however, that this "thing" has a use value.
In the context of a free market, several major conclusions follow from the theory. The subjective theory of value is a denial of intrinsic value. It leads to the conclusion that there is no proper price of a good or service other than the rate at which it trades in a free market.
Whereas the labor theory of value has been used to condemn profit as exploitation, the subjective theory of value rebuts that condemnation: a buyer in a free market who offers to pay a price lower than that which is commensurate with the amount of labor used to produce the good merely communicates information to the seller about the value the good might create for the buyer. (The price offered is not a measure of subjective value; it is just a means of communication between the buyer and the seller.) The offer is in one sense an expression of the buyer's opinion, which the seller is free to reject.
Indeed, the subjective theory of value supports the inference that all voluntary trade is mutually beneficial.
In conclusion for people like Ozzie. When trade is purely voluntary as in a free market. BOTH parties experience an increase in wealth. Thus the net effect is wealth increases.
As opposed to anything coercively taken in which one party experiences a gain, the other a loss. Since it is not quantifiable the next effect is unkown.
So the free market is not about zero-sum games. Obviously you didn't posses the capacity to understand my "stupid" analogy. Next time give a proper answer or I'll just insult you back, as I just did.
Some more excerpts from articles about economics and zero-sum games:
"To put it quite simply, economics is not a zero sum game. Economics, on its most basic level, is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. Adam Smith famously explained that in order for a transaction to take place, both parties must benefit. Therefore, it is true that in order to buy a stock, someone else must sell the stock. However, this is not a zero sum game because I value the stock more than the money I paid and the seller values the money more than the stock. We are each better off. This is a basic fundamental of economic theory."
"That's the extraordinary and marvelous thing about free trade in a global economy - it's not a zero-sum game. Nations party to free-trade agreements win, and the generated economic gains accrue across all sectors of the participating economies. As President Kennedy aptly observed about expanding economies, "A rising tide lifts all boats." In what has been the most dynamic era of economic development in human history, trade has become the basis for a prosperous world economy."
"In game theory, a zero sum game is one in which the gains of one are exactly balanced by the losses of another. In economics, a zero sum game is aptly described by the saying, “As the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.” Many assume that our “economic pie” is static, so that if some take more of the pie, there is less for others to share. But capitalism increases the size of the pie, and although some may get bigger pieces than others, all gain."
PS: Please try prove that value is objective.
Since that is the only way to prove me wrong. Go ahead. I want to see it.
Last edited:
