Quote from: Lillyad on October 02, 2012, 04:31 amSo... maybe this guy "N1ghtmare" is a bit of a retard, but LSD on here is pretty damn expensive. My dealer quit, and now I have to pay double here. And I have to waste my time trying to figure out who is going to send me expensive paper. I would not mind paying a bit of a premium if I were certain that I would actually get what I'd paid for. Ratings seem to be no obstacle in screwing you over.I'm sort of tired of these sorts of economics 1001 arguments e.g. from "Grahamgreene": basically that, if your seller is kicking you in the balls with high prices that that's AOK because it's a free market. These arguments are usually made by people who've maybe watched some Ron Paul on YouTube or something.*Sigh* I did not say "if your seller is kicking you in the balls with high prices that that's AOK because it's a free market"; I said that because it is a free market, vendors are free to charge whatever they want for their product. If the buyer chooses to pay the price being charged, it is because they value the product more than they value the money it costs or the Bitcoin that they're paying for it. You have a choice whether to buy the product or not. If you have a choice of getting kicked in the balls or not, I'm 99% sure most reasonable men would choose the latter.To sum that up: If you choose to "get kicked in the balls" with prices, that's entirely up to you - it is a decision that is entirely yours to make. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy the products offered here. It is up to the buyer to decide whether to buy the product or not. They don't NEED the LSD. They WANT it, and they pay the prices asked for it. If enough LSD buyers chose not to do so, the prices would most likely drop as a result of reduced demand on the available supply.Quote from: Lillyad on October 02, 2012, 04:31 amThe "free market" does not have a fixed, agreed-upon definition. The real question is whether the Silk Road is a "competitive market" or whether there is "perfect competition" -- And I think it's a pretty clear negative in both cases. It's at best a shady oligopoly. The problem is that you never know whether you're going to get what you paid for. Through various accounts, I've ordered from about 4 different sellers, and I don't think I've ever got the advertised amounts -- sometimes as low as 1/4 of what was advertised. All of these sellers had ratings of over 95.The "free market" DOES have a fixed, agreed-upon definition (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp#axzz287EILD8w):"A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation.Investopedia explains 'Free Market':In simple terms, a free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is a voluntary agreement between two parties who trade in the form of goods and services. In reality, this is the extent to which a free market exists since there will always be government intervention in the form of taxes, price controls and restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market. Just like supply-side economics, free market is a term used to describe a political or ideological viewpoint on policy and is not a field within economics."The fact that there is NO "government intervention in the form of taxes, price controls and restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market" means that yes, this is the dictionary definition of a free market.I'm not entirely sure where you studied economics but you should probably look into some way of getting refunded for the substandard schooling you received. ???Quote from: Lillyad on October 02, 2012, 04:31 amSo let's look at Graham's post:>"The prices are 'unreasonable' to you, because value is subjective."Yeah no shit. Here's another one "The bath is hot to you because heat is subjective."Mmm, no. Heat is not subjective, it is relative. Everyone knows that a hot bath is hot, otherwise it wouldn't be a "hot bath". VALUE, on the other hand, differs from person to person based on how they view it. "Relative" is considered in relation to something else; whereas "subjective" pertains to, or is characteristic of, an individual - it is personal. The bath is hot to you depending on the heat of the water relative to both the surrounding ambient temperature and the temperature of your own body.If, for example, the ambient temperature is 15 degrees Celsius, you've developed hypothermia from being in the pool too long so your body is 32 degrees Celsius and the water is a regular bath temperature of 39 degrees Celsius, then yes, the water will feel hot to you. However, if the ambient temperature is 40 degrees Celsius, you've developed hyperthermia from heatstroke so your body is 38 degrees Celsius and the water has cooled so it is 32 degrees Celsius, the water will feel cool to you. Why? Because heat is relative. :)It is, of course, relative based on subjective factors such as whether the person has been outside or inside etc.; 'factors' are things that either influence or make up 'the whole', making it what? Exaaaactly - relative based on subjective factors.Value is subjective. If I pick up a pair of fashionable shoes that I like the look of, but see that they cost $500 and don't buy them because of that it is because I do not place $500 worth of value on them. However, if my fashionista friend (who earns the same as me, taking circumstantial relativity out of the question) sees that same pair, glances at the price, and pays $500 for them it is because he deems the benefits of spending $500 on those shoes outweighs the benefits of having $500 in his pocket. Quite simply he values the shoes more than he values the $500.Quote from: Lillyad on October 02, 2012, 04:31 am>"Prices are not 'unjustly high'. The prices are what they are because buyers are willing to pay those prices."Graham seems to think that prices are not "unjustly high" if someone is willing to pay them. So if you were starving and I sold you a burger for $1000, that would not be unjust.Whilst your example brings "moral justice" into the equation, which is not what I am talking about in the quote above, if I were starving I would place more value on that burger than I would the $1000, as the $1000 would be worth nothing to me were I to die from starvation. I may consider it 'morally unjust' for you to charge me so much for the burger, but morality is entirely subjective. You, being the seller of the burger, would obviously not be thinking it morally unjust if you were charging so much to a starving man.What I actually stated is that "prices are not 'unjustly high'" as "justice" does not come into the equation, moral or otherwise; the simple fact of the matter is that the prices are what they are because people pay them. It's the basic economic principle of supply and demand.Quote from: Lillyad on October 02, 2012, 04:31 amCould someone please explain to me how what you think a free market is differs from "you can do anything, including kick people in the balls."?I answered this above in my first paragraph in this post between the words "*Sigh*" and "supply." To save me repeating myself, please refer to that paragraph for the explanation you're looking for.If you have any more questions or criticisms I'll be delighted to answer and rebut them.- grahamgreene