On Saturday, December 1, 2001, at 01:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2001, at 12:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> -- >> On 1 Dec 2001, at 8:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
