> Price is an indication of value.
That's not a falsehood. It's true.
That's not a falsehood. It's true.
That's it's price.
Doesn't mean it's its value. It's not even anywhere close to being an indicator for it.
Might not even be due to ignorance, like in the example ("information assymetry" as the popular kids call it).
I might sell a Ferrari for $10 dollars out of spite (it belonged to my ex and I hated them). Stranger things have happened.
I gave an counter example where someone ignorant of a thing's value (a guy who doesn't know they're selling an ultra rare stamp) sets it price to $1, wherea the market would gladly have paid 1000x times that.
You said, "It's value to you was $1".
When told it's not relevant, you said "there's no utility in saying something's value is $100 when nobody will give you $10 for it" which is about a different kind of value altogether.
While that's correct in itself, I pointed how that's not refuting my example, as my example covers exactly the reverse case: the situation where plenty would give you 10x or 1000x for what you sell at a price of $x. In other words, I gave an example where price is NOT an indication of value. That's what you had to refute.
You then backtracked to saying again: "It's value to you was $1".
In any case, value has specific meanings in economics, and neither of them is about "value to you [the seller]":
"Economic value is the measurement of the benefit derived from a good or service to an individual or a company. Economic value can also be the maximum price or amount of money that someone is willing to pay for a good or service. As a result, economic value can be higher than market value".
What price a seller sets for a product is based on neither of those cases.
It can be widely different from the actual market value the item could fetch (as per my example).
And it's also not the value the buyer gets ("the benefit derived from a good or service to an individual or a company"). Again in the example I gave this is many orders of magnitude bigger than the selling price.
The dog's price is $50. The dog's value is much higher. See also: family heirlooms.
When two people agree on the value, an exchange takes place. That's how the Law of Supply & Demand works.
The price the seller sets is the seller's idea of its value. The price the buyer bids is the buyers' idea of its value. When those prices are the same, and an exchange takes place, that price is the value of the item to both of them at that moment.
Your story seems like a frictionless spherical cows in a vacuum kind of economics theory.
He didn't take the offer.
That's what a "nonsense" value is - a price nobody is willing to part with their own money to pay for it.
Many people seem to believe in a notion of "intrinsic worth". There is no such thing. Trying to force such a thing using the law just results in a lot of deleterious distortions.
For example, when the government tries to fix the price of gold to a fiat currency, an inevitable monetary crisis follows.