Look JT, if you want to talk about what you think economic theory is, go find a board to talk about economic theory.
I'm in the economics board of an experimental currency forum.
If you are going to go around saying what you think economic theory is without saying it is your opinion, and in fact telling other people their interpretations based on accepted economic theory are wrong, you are a troll. Nobody cares what you think unless your name is Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk or John Maynard Keynes.
How can you call me troll this way? You're kidding again like when you said I called you marxist, right?
My point is that how all the people value (not just one individual) a product is what determines its demand. And only after you have demand you can have a price.
And if we're talking accepted economic theory, which you imply by not prefacing your post with "this is from the jtimon school of economics", this is wrong.
I thought that the fact that my economic theories are not generally accepted was implied in my signature and therefore my conclusions are based in the "jtimon school of economics" that you like so much to mention despite it doesn't exists. Yet
Not only is it wrong, it is really wrong.
For one thing, have you heard of supply?
Yes. In your example, apparently a single guy selling a bottle of water for $5 no matter what.
How "all people value" sounds a lot like Marxism, you might want to work on that if you think Marxism is bad.
The sum of all people's needs, wants and preferences. The demand.
Peter doesn't buy the water at $4 just because it values it that much. But if everybody values water at $4, if there's no demand for water at $5, the producer will eventually drop the price to $4 to sell it and get rid of his stock, no matter how much did cost him to produce.
Who said there is no demand for water at $5? Why do we need to add a condition to my simple statement of (il)logic?
That was the proposition I made that you wanted to prove wrong with your example. I'll put it in other words:
If the demand is not sufficient, the selling price of a product can become lower than the costs temporally.
Then the supply will shrink and the price will rise again to meet the costs of production OR the costs of production drop to meet the price OR a combination of both.
In fact I think the point you're trying to prove wrong is widely accepted. You know, the supply curve goes down and also the price.
I'm not providing real data and the only evidence I know in economics is logic and assumptions that cannot be denied.
lol didn't I just deny your assumption with a 3 line logic statement?
You mean my assumption "what people value is what creates demand" or my proposition "if value causes demand and demand (with supply) causes price, value comes before price"?
Are these your 3 lines?
This is what you are arguing. There is no logical conclusion that "price comes after the value." You said yourself price is caused by the interaction of supply and demand. That is in conflict with "price comes after value." Demand implies value, price determines whether or not the value given up (in money) is marginally useful enough to warrant a trade. The higher the price, the less likely an individual will think it is marginally useful. The price and the value are not tidally locked.
I don't think that you proved there with logic and assumptions that I can accept. My job would be now to point out the assumptions you're making that I don't accept and the errors in logic (fallacies) I think you're making.
I'll translate it to a more formal logic to analyze it better.
This is what you are arguing. There is no logical conclusion that "price comes after the value."
You said yourself price is caused by the interaction of supply and demand.
(Supply, demand) cause price
That is in conflict with "price comes after value."
not ( ( (Supply, demand) cause price ) and (value before price) )
Demand implies value
demand -> value
price determines whether or not the value given up (in money) is marginally useful enough to warrant a trade.
if (price <= value_for_consumer), consumer wants to buy
if (price >= value_for_producer), producer wants to sell
The higher the price, the less likely an individual will think it is marginally useful.
Included in the last propositions.
Sorry, I don't see any proof.
But how can we be discussing what comes first, if value or price?
Value comes before price, before money and even before barter.
Look bro, I'm not a teacher and I'm certainly not an economist.
I can tell.
The resources are out there for you to study, I cannot reduce them to simple logic deductions because the economy is very complex.
I'm sorry for you. Some people call it praxeology.
People spend many years in college devoted to the study of this stuff.
Yes, and some people have spent many years devoted to the study of chess or weiki/baduk/go, but that doesn't prevent me from knowing the rules of those games.
Maybe you should read the links and try to understand them instead of repeating why you think it works this or that way.
Maybe you should try to understand me, teach me (make me understand you) and arrive to conclusions and agreements, because that's what forums are about.
Not about trying to mock at people.