Stupid Pilot Tricks - Insurance Co. Trying to Back Out

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

If we value the same labour differently,
one of us does not have all the relevant information


Ice is more valuable to somebody with no freezer.

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.

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.

My knowledge is more valuable to
somebody who is partly ignorant ...(and of no value to somebody who is
wholely
ignorant or totally educated).

Your knowledge means something only when it is combined with labour to
create additional value in the economy. If you use the advantage of your
superior knowledge to undervalue someone elses labour, or distort facts
about contents and performance of a product, that is an aberration of the
free-market system which allows the wealthy to accumulate at the expense of
others, and even free market economies have to curtail that. I think one
example is called "insider trading".


Sometimes the value of a thing (concrete or not) is based on
circumstances, and
it doesn't take labor to change the circumstances.

No, I don't believe that. Circumstances cause inflation or deflation, but
they do not change the base value. Inflation and deflation are considered
disruptive charateristics of an economy, which Mr. Greenspan and the
Government try to control. Disruptive circumstances such as hurricanes or
desparation within segments of the poplulace cause short term price gouging
and the like. I would not consider this as a healthy aspect of a
free-market economy and we put mechanisms in place to control them. Does
that make these socialistic mechanisms bad policies?

A diplomat can change the
value of an atomic bomb by talking. An atomic bomb can change the value
of
milk if the diplomat doesn't talk well.

We are not talking politics here, we are talking economy.

A bomb is a negative on the economy, because if it is not used, it has
wasted labor, and if it IS used, it will destroy the fruits of other labor.
If it is used to destroy other bombs, that only means that somebody else's
labour was also wasted in the creation of THOSE bombs, and on and on in a
vicious circle. Building and using bombs is a presumption that we WILL have
losses, and all we are doing is cutting the losses, rather than attempting
to improve our growth.


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. This has been argued several posts
back.

A free-and-open-market economy is not meant to have "losers". I do a little
work for you, you do a little work for me, we both gain. ...and so on and so
on.... If I choose to do little, I gain less than the guy who does more.
But this concept has morphed into something considerably different, where it
has become much easier to "win" (and lose), and where there are blatant
attempts to hide information so that a losers are created such that the rest
of us can win. Governemnts try to control this, (and to compensate for the
Market's errors) with a few socialistic policies.

This does not make them evil agents of the communist devil.

Our OT time is up, we now return you to your regular programming.