What if buyers A,B, and C are willing to buy at 1500 and sellers X,Y, and Z are willing to sell at 800? What would be the market clearing price? Anything between 800-1500 would satisfy all preferences
@@noyb154 well, just like he defined. It means, for the buyer, that it is the maximum amount he'd pay for the commodity, and for the seller the minimum amount he'd sell at
The price is set by the marginal utility. Buyers A, B and C will compete for output by committing to the high price of 1500 for the marginal unit. Austrians see price as determined by marginal utility, with marginal cost a dependent variable not an independent variable.
I am by no means an expert on Austrian economics, but I think the answer is pretty obvious. I would say that you are technically correct and I say this just from my experience in product development. The seller though will try to sell for as much as possible, and the buyer for as little as possible. Now in the occasion that the buyer is willing to pay far more than the seller is willing to sell, it then becomes a game of who knows what. Which party knows or does not know the other's price? But if they do know, then the game hinges on a number of possible variables such as how many times the good might be consumed (marginal utility if I have that correct), competition, and time. However none of these are rules that establish personal choice.
Can one claim that the value theory proposed by Herbener is better than Marx's theory of value? One can claim that only if the two theories are made to serve the same purpose. One can, for instance, compare a skrewdriver with another skrewdriver and say that one of them serves its purpose better than the other. One cannot compare a hammer with a skrewdriver and criticize the hammer for not being a good skrewdriver. That does not make sense. Both theories are designed to serve different purposes. Herbener presents a value theory that is supposed to be valid for every individual and for every society. When he uses the word "value", he refers to something that is purely subjective and is located primarily in the individual. Marx, on the other hand, did not intend to construct a value theory valid for every society and even for a monade of the Robinson Crusoe type. He was primarily interested in a modern capitalist society and its specific characteristics, one of them being, for instance, that every or almost every product of human labour is produced as a commodity. When Marx speaks about value, he refers to a social construct, i. e. a certain relationship between persons that is mediated through things.
Prof Herberner is absolutely brilliant!!!
What if buyers A,B, and C are willing to buy at 1500 and sellers X,Y, and Z are willing to sell at 800? What would be the market clearing price? Anything between 800-1500 would satisfy all preferences
"Willing to" is not well defined here. Are there open offers on the table? "Will" must be exercised to be objectively examined.
@@noyb154 well, just like he defined. It means, for the buyer, that it is the maximum amount he'd pay for the commodity, and for the seller the minimum amount he'd sell at
The price is set by the marginal utility. Buyers A, B and C will compete for output by committing to the high price of 1500 for the marginal unit. Austrians see price as determined by marginal utility, with marginal cost a dependent variable not an independent variable.
I am by no means an expert on Austrian economics, but I think the answer is pretty obvious.
I would say that you are technically correct and I say this just from my experience in product development. The seller though will try to sell for as much as possible, and the buyer for as little as possible. Now in the occasion that the buyer is willing to pay far more than the seller is willing to sell, it then becomes a game of who knows what. Which party knows or does not know the other's price? But if they do know, then the game hinges on a number of possible variables such as how many times the good might be consumed (marginal utility if I have that correct), competition, and time. However none of these are rules that establish personal choice.
Can one claim that the value theory proposed by Herbener is better than Marx's theory of value?
One can claim that only if the two theories are made to serve the same purpose. One can, for instance, compare a skrewdriver with another skrewdriver and say that one of them serves its purpose better than the other. One cannot compare a hammer with a skrewdriver and criticize the hammer for not being a good skrewdriver. That does not make sense.
Both theories are designed to serve different purposes.
Herbener presents a value theory that is supposed to be valid for every individual and for every society. When he uses the word "value", he refers to something that is purely subjective and is located primarily in the individual.
Marx, on the other hand, did not intend to construct a value theory valid for every society and even for a monade of the Robinson Crusoe type. He was primarily interested in a modern capitalist society and its specific characteristics, one of them being, for instance, that every or almost every product of human labour is produced as a commodity. When Marx speaks about value, he refers to a social construct, i. e. a certain relationship between persons that is mediated through things.
too smart for me. IQ mogs me