Remember the Matrix? "There is no spoon."You're stating that people pay what something is worth and receive likewise. This is untrue. You sell at what you can get and you buy at what you can get. That is never the actual value.
There is no "actual value". As I pointed out in my prior post, believing in an "actual value" is one of the most pernicious of economic fallacies.
What is the "actual value" of my hypothetical "Uumlau action figure"? It's f-cking worthless to everyone, even me, yet money and resources were (in my example) spent making them. Their actual value is not "how much it cost to make them" nor is it "my expenses plus a small-but-fair profit". There is no actual value. Or perhaps Uumlau becomes a world famous soccer star, at which point the worthless figurines become vintage collectibles worth $10,000 a pop.
The other point of my action figure example is that it isn't about selling for "what you can get" so much as finding something to sell that other people value. My example is purposefully ridiculous because there isn't even a "what I can get": I need a completely different business model that involves making/doing something that people actually want.
Value is always personal and circumstantial. A bottle of water is of little value if there's a water fountain down the hall, of moderate value if there's a fountain but you hate the taste of the fountain water, and of great value if you are hiking through a desert.
So I'm not saying that people pay "people pay what something is worth and receive likewise". I'm saying that people pay what they're willing to pay for something they want - something they want MORE than they want to keep their money in their pocket. The person selling that something is in the business of selling it because they've figured out that people want it more (in terms of resource expenditures) than it takes the business to supply it. That's why it is win-win. No one has lost in the exchange. In fact, barring coercion or fraud, the trade can only proceed if and only if both parties believe that they gain from the trade.
Perception of value IS the value. Some people value a new car more and will pay for it. Some people find that extra 40% ridiculous and will gladly buy 2 yr old used models for much less.Take cars for example. I buy a new car and drive it off the forecourt down the road and sell it. Some cars will have dropped 40 percent in value in ten miles. That's now based on value but the perception of value. Add to that mix marketing and strategy and you have the market, basically. Now who has the most influence on perception? The big boys,the ones with the cash. Ergo they can set the market in their favour.
I'm not saying, however, that car dealers don't often use shady tactics to eek out every last penny, e.g., the "extended warranty" that HAS to cost more, on average, than paying for repairs as you go, otherwise they wouldn't sell it. I'm just pointing out that value is necessarily based on perception and some people are willing to pay for that perceived value, even if they're entirely aware of how much the car's value drops upon driving off the lot. I'm aware of it myself, and I prefer to pay for a new car than risk buying a "refurbished" one for much less, because I prefer to have an extra couple of years of not needing repairs or maintenance, and I'm fully aware of all that the vehicle has been through.
Well, Britain was wise enough to stay out of the Euro, I'll give you that!Btw, when did the government getting money become separate from the people? Do we Brits need to let you guys back in so you can see how it's done right?