And I replied with this: Nothing ever in the history of mankind has had "real value". Always, it takes two things to make value. Value arises from trading one thing for another.
Value is merely the Old French word for the English word worth. All worth comes from the minds of men and what they esteem versus what they don't.
To believe that anything has "real value" is to believe in the fallacy of intrinsic worth. And thus, to believe in that fallacy requires anyone to believe that all prices ought to be fixed in proportion to the stuff inside each thing.
I brought to his attention a work of my from long ago, which you can read right here on Bizarro Theater: DEBUNKING YET ANOTHER ACADEMICIAN EGGHEAD AND HIS ECONOMICS FOOLERY. That work exposes an "Austrian" school economist and his silly beliefs.
Straight away, one of the defenders of that fallacy riddled camp of academia economics chimed in to me. Here is what happened.
I read that article. I'm a fan of the Austrian school. They're right. Everyone else is wrong. What are you, a Keynesian?
You don't know anything about auctions. I do because I shop at ebay! Auction losers don't lose because of a lack of buying power. They lose because they give up.
I've been to thousands of auctions.
In English auctions, winning bidders outbid the other bidders.
If two start bidding but one drops out, the one who drops out failed to have the buying power to match the one who won. Clearly, all bid participants started out wanting the same thing.
The winning bidder matched the bid of the loser and then surpassed it. The winning bidder had the means to gain property in whatever has been auctioned. The losing bidder did not. If the loser had the means he could have bid higher.
Besides, unknowingly, you have confirmed what I wrote above, All worth comes from the minds of men and what they esteem versus what they don't. It is because the loser lacks the means that he comes to believe that it is not worth it at this price.
You do not need to lecture me about auctions, I have attended literally hundreds of live auctions, and participated in over 1000 ebay auctions as buyer and seller.
Well Eddie, if two people are bidding for the same thing and one outbids the other, the one who bid more has the means to do so. Because if the other one had the means, the other one would have kept bidding until winning. The loser can't gain property in what is being auctioned and take possession of it because he can't pay the trade rate set by the market.
Even if the two are bidding on the same thing for the purpose of re-sale, and one can outbid the other, the one who fails to outbid does so because he can't break even on the higher price what is to be re-sold. So again, the one losing the bidding lacks the means.
You are wrong because I said so. I go to auctions. I know.
When Bugatti offers cars for sale, they bid down against other car sellers of their kind. That is a Dutch auction. Likewise, would-be car buyers bid up against each other. That is an English auction. Where the winning participants match, that is a purchase and sale.
What stops the woman with a $50,000 a year from buying a $200,000 Bugatti Veyron?
If you want to read more about these Misean Cultists like Ebay Eddie, check out:
And if you want to discover why academia economists are wrong, in general, about everything, read these: