On Saturday, December 1, 2001, at 01:40 PM, georgemw@speakeasy.net wrote:
On 1 Dec 2001, at 12:56, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
-- On 1 Dec 2001, at 8:18, georgemw@speakeasy.net 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.
If there is a "universally agreed upon value" for something, and someone values it differently, is it still "universal"? Nope. What there may be are market-clearing prices, in various markets and at various times, but this has nothing to do with "universally agreed-upon values." --Tim May "The State is the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else." --Frederic Bastiat