On 1 Dec 2001, at 12:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > -- > On 1 Dec 2001, at 8:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm surprised I've gotten so much disagreement over this, > > particularly since my original statement was much weaker > > than it could have been. For reputation to have a single > > well defined value it is necessary but not sufficient that > > there be a market in reputations; it must be a COMMODITIZED > > market. > > Not so. > > Something has a single well defined value to its possessor > without any need for it to be commoditized. > > For an item to have a single well defined market value it > needs to be commoditized, but that is a different issue. >
We're not disagreeing. By a "single" value I meant a universally agreed upon value. It's likely true that the owner of any item will have a single value that he thinks he'll be out if that item is destroyed (I can't see how there could be more than one), but unless the item is a commodity, nobody else will know for sure what that value is. George > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > U5GMQeSNlQCQl5JIYhGl4zYPDycgMVdHUxmfk+l2 > 4S5Ss0+J1kdE7tCI/aRLeU8oLqXOwYgyIK3jX5qqJ