pull down to refresh
You are saying any exchange on the market is called donations? They are all barters using a medium of exchange, but donations? I think you are dodging the issue by changing the definitions of the words you are using. Do you know who does that all the time?
No, I'm saying markets (and market prices) have a function -- directly related to scarcity.
When you're paying for something that isn't scarce, i.e. isn't an economic goods, what am I to call it but a gift or a donation?
When you pay, whether in money or other goods, you are exchanging. Donations, on the other hand, are outright gifts. Those are the differences. Does it matter whether the good being exchanged for is in plenty or scarce? No, not really, because there is an exchange going on. As I said before, there would be no exchange if both the parties to the exchange did not think what they were getting was worth more than what they were giving up.
Let me "sell" you some air, sir.
How about my mother's recipe for chocolate cake? Or a^2+b^2=c^2?
Great, however I find no value and will not exchange. I already own the ones I want. As a counter offer I will take those goods if you pay me 5000 sats. Got a different offer?
I gotta pay you for taking noneconomic goods?
Interesting, interesting... A little like how musicians as a group supply music at a loss?
You understand what dickering is all about, then, right? Only if they cannot sell tickets to their live concerts. Or, enough tickets to cover the price of the venue and the profit as the entrepreneurs.
yes, it's called donations.
You sure you want to call it a donation when I buy a ticket so I can see an artist perform live and have a great experience?
Sorry but that argument is so weak, I’m not sure you’re arguing in good faith.
Your reply is infinitely replicable both technologically (1s and 0s are infinite) and linguistically (= words are free).
That’s a very narrow view. Not all content is created equally. People pay to get access to content from some writers. Just because the vast majority of people write for free, doesn’t mean all content is free. It’s clearly not.
I pointed out that this is just changing the definitions of the words being used.
I explicitly use the concert example in the article. You're welcome to read it, sir.
A concert, unlike infinitely replicable digital files, has plenty of scarcity -- which is why Taylor etc can charge tons for them.
Do I need to read the article to point out that replying with
yes, it's called donations
to
I’ve gone to concerts and paid using dollars
doesn't make sense? But I see, I think you only wanted to reply to the first part:
I bought music using dollars
I still don't agree with you but it at least makes more sense now
Yea, the dude said he's bought "music using dollars". And then in later sentence he mentioned concert.
So that's what I was replying to.
Concerts are scarce economic goods (well, services). No argument there. But that's not what I'm talking about
Music has become less valuable since Napster and the ability to get copies of music without the requirement of a physical medium to hold that music. I do see your point. However even though music is much cheaper, there are still services providing a selection of music and those services charge a fee. What you get in return is music.
Also, importantly, words themselves may be free, however the ideas held in them can be immensely valuable.
yes, it's called donations.
Your reply is infinitely replicable both technologically (1s and 0s are infinite) and linguistically (= words are free).
I will proceed to zap your reply. Have I now undermined the fact that your reply, being nonscarce, has zero economic value?