No, the person with the freezer may not have a need to buy ice, but if he
DOES buy it, he should be buying it for exactly the same value of money or
labour which the person without a freezer would pay. That is because the
maker/vendor of the ice spent a certain amount on materials, overhead, and
expects a certain amount of profit, and it should be the same no matter who
the buyer. Otherwise it becomes an aberration of the free-market which we
call price-gouging.


There is no reason that he =should= be buying it for exactly the same price.
Who is going to dictate that price? (especially if you reject the idea that
the individuals who =make=up= the market shouldn't.


My labor is more valuable to
somebody who can't do what I just did.

.... true, but in return, his labor is valuable to you because he can do what
you cannot. That provides both of you with an incentive to work and add
value to the economy.


While this (incentive thing) may be true, it is irrelevant to my point, which
is that my labor (or anything) does not have a fixed value, but a value that is
dependent on to whom, when, and how it is presented. Just like ice to eskimos.


Your knowledge means something only when it is combined with labour to
create additional value in the economy.


My knowledge (such as of a better process) can allow me to =avoid= labor. It
can allow me to get along =without= buying something. It can keep me healthy
in the face of McDonalds. It can keep my airplane (obligatory reference) out
of the repair shop, and it can do so =without= labor. Giving this knowlege to
others (free or at a price) to allow them to reap the same benefits is of
value, but only to those who don't have that knowlege already, and know that it
would be helpful to them.

Disruptive circumstances such as hurricanes...

Hurricaines and such are not disruptive; we only see them that way because we
look short term. An engine overhaul is not an "extraordinary disruptive
expense" either. It is an expected part of flying, and one the intellegent
airplane owner counts on having (see my knowledge point above). It's
disruptive only if you do not have a reserve built in. "The market" does not
build in a reserve for hurricaines, though the insurance industry makes a
start.

[re. A-bombs and milk] We are not talking politics here, we are talking
economy.

They are interrelated. I have a piece of land I'd like to develop. It's zoned
for four acre housing, and is vacant. I can sell it for no more than $10,000
an acre. I make nice to the town council, they vote to rezone the land for
"mixed use", which includes businesses and quarter acre housing. Now I can
sell this land for ten times as much. It's the same land.


What is the value of water in a bottle? Why is one person willing to pay $5
and the person next to her unwilling to even carry it to the car if it's
free?


Because one of those people does not have all the information. Thus one of
these people is a "loser" in the economy.


Nope. One person is not thirsty and has good tap water at home. The other has
tap water that tastes of salt and chlorine. It has nothing to do with
information, and everything to do with circumstances. Nobody is a loser.

So how much is the water "worth"? The real answer is "to whom?". The concept
of "the market" is a convenient abbreviation for very complex forces, and is
very useful. However, when examined too closely, it fails.

This is ok... it's just a convenient moniker. But don't mistake it for a real
force in its own right.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)