On behalf of all market fundamentalists - I view a price, which is the product of an exchange, as information. Nothing more and nothing less. I don't view information as good or bad, such as a "just price." It is simply information.
Some people do not like the information, just like some people do not like what a scale tells them when they stand on it. The dislike of specific information is subjective. Normally, this is no big deal. If a buyer subjectively views the appropriate price for an apple as 25 cents, and the seller subjectively views the appropriate price at 50 cents, they each go on their way without a second thought. At this point, we are in the realm of economic and/or moral reasoning, and I have nothing insightful to say whether buyer should or should not be offended that seller will not sell the apple at 25 cents. The issue moves from the economic/moral to the political when the discussion moves from whether one "should" disregard a price to one "must" disregard a price, or whether A and B should not be permitted to engage in exchange regardless of a mutually satisfactory price. To reach such conclusion, we necessarily must conclude that C's view of the proposed transaction between A and B is so important that it should be imposed by force of law/gun. For you to convince me, a market fundamentalist, that C should be permitted to impose value on A and B, you must convince me that C knows more than A and B about the exchange from the perspective of A and B. For example, you must convince me that Mayor Bloomberg knows better than the consumer of soft drinks what is in the subjective best interests of the consumer from the subjective perspective of the consumer. I insist on the subjective standard, that Mayor Bloomberg knows me better than I know myself, which is indeed a very high burden, as opposed to whether Mayor Bloomberg claims to know what a fully informed A and B would do if they were hyper-rational. I assert that position because I a priori reject the notion that there is some "objective" view of what a person should do and I especially reject the probability that a third person who gets themselves in a position of power and ability to use force will be in a better position than me to know my best interest. I am a radical subjectivist, and all that entails. While it should not be necessary, I will conclude with the proviso that I am not an anarchist, I am in favor of rules, there are hard cases, externalities, transaction cost problems, etc. David Shemano From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]]<mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> On Behalf Of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 5:07 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [Pen-l] What Money Can't Buy http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/may/27/michael-sandel-reason-values-bodies
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
