The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment:'re missing half of it

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Here goes... (see in situ)'re missing half of it

First, thanks for an honest attempt to answer the question.

I think you're incorrectly understanding what happens during an exchange.

Let me first see if I understand your argument: You're saying that the buyer exchanges his purchasing power for the value of the asset, while the seller does the reverse...BUT that the seller actually gains a little because the purchasing power he receives is a little more than the cost to create the asset, and that extra gain (profit) is how wealth is created. Therefore, it makes more sense for the buyer to want to give this profit (wealth gains) to people that are more likely to buy from him in the future and thus giving him a chance to gain wealth as the future seller.

The glaring error in that, is that BOTH the buyer and seller gain their respective wealth from a transaction, not just the seller. The value to the buyer of the asset he buys is always going to be more than the purchasing power he gives for it, or he wouldn't do the exchange. Therefore, the self interest of the buyer is to maximize his wealth gain right now from the purchase, which leads me to my second critique of your argument...

Not all sellers are created equal in the eye of the buyer, the main difference being the price for which the sellers will sell the goods. Obviously, the buyer is going to look for the lowest price, because that maximizes his wealth gains from the transaction. You seem to assume that the buyer can buy from any seller and it doesn't make any difference to him. Of course if all other things are equal, he might prefer to do business with people close to him...but all other things aren't equal. Iowa can produce cheaper corn, Florida can produce cheaper oranges, and China can produce cheaper manufactured goods. Therefor, it's in the buyers interest to buy Iowa corn, Florida oranges, and China manufactured goods.

Going further, some argue that China's low cost is different than Florida's, because it's artificially created by monetary policy and Chinese laws that encourage exports at the expense of domestic consumption. Even so, this policy ends up hurting China and benefiting their customers. China ends up making a bunch of stuff for others and consuming very little themselves. That's a bum deal! Much better to be the recipient who gets to consume China's stuff at artificially low prices paid for by loss of wealth of Chinese citizens.