Moving beyond "Reputation"--the Market View of Reality

[georgemw at speakeasy.net]

On 1 Dec 2001, at 12:56, jamesd at echeque.com wrote:

>     --
> On 1 Dec 2001, at 8:18, georgemw at 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.  It's likely true that the owner of any item will
have a single value that he thinks he'll be out if that item is
destroyed (I can't see how there could be more than one),
but unless the item is a commodity, nobody else will know for
sure what that value is.   

George
>     --digsig
>          James A. Donald
>      6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
>      U5GMQeSNlQCQl5JIYhGl4zYPDycgMVdHUxmfk+l2
>      4S5Ss0+J1kdE7tCI/aRLeU8oLqXOwYgyIK3jX5qqJ