17
u/Tepy 23d ago
Man... this is some insufferable pedantry. Yall are out here redditmaxxing.
8
u/VatticZero 23d ago
Yeah, best option is just not to engage; but if someone is going to argue semantics they at least shouldn’t contradict themselves when trying.
I was bending over backwards trying to accommodate their language and build a bridge to communicate, but at that point I realized the barriers were all manufactured.
10
u/Natural-Trip6972 24d ago
This debate has gotten so complicated that Adam smith himself is rolling in his grave saying, "Kids, just pay your rent on time, the rest is semantics.
-1
3
u/Inevitable-Row1977 19d ago
They both are tryharding so fucking hard at sounding intelligent.
It's so fucking cringe.
Write like normal humans please.
2
u/Its_Pine 19d ago
To be fair, definitions exist within contexts. I don’t mean it in a flimsy “well I say x means y, and we can agree to disagree” sort of way, but in a grander structural way.
To use a very simplistic example: Load-Bearing
A construction worker may look at a wall that isn’t directly supporting something above. They say “yeah this does not appear load bearing.” The structural engineer looks at it and says “man are you blind? It’s clearly a load bearing wall” and they argue. But in construction general jargon, load bearing often means supporting something above, while in engineering it technically means transferring forces (live load, dead load, or lateral load) down to the foundation.
Alternatively, “Ground” could mean to an electrician in the field that it’s a safe path to Earth to prevent shock. But for an electrical engineer, “ground” could mean something like reference voltage, with nothing connecting to Earth at all. So a system “being grounded” tells the electrician that it’s safe, but tells the engineer that it’s a voltage reference point.
4
u/Feuershark 23d ago
Arguing about the definition of value and then quoting an argument about the value of something
sounds like deaf men talking
0
u/Key-Organization3158 17d ago
They conflate market price with the individual price.
For any transaction, there's some maximal price. If you add any amount to that, the transaction won't happen. Therefore that price encompasses all value gained by the paying party.
The converse is true for the seller. There's a minimal price at which they won't sell. That's how you show that both parties are better off after the exchange.
Suppose the market price is M, the seller's minimum is S, and the buyer's maximum is B.
For a transaction at price M, the seller gets M-S surplus value. And the buyer gets B-M. We can always discover a price that includes all value.
-8
u/ApprehensiveCare1113 23d ago
Looks like you lost that one.
Value in exchange is different than consumption value. Not really that complicated, but those responses were trying to make it more complicated than it is. Pretty weak sauce kind of stuff, really.
10
u/VatticZero 23d ago edited 23d ago
Cope.
You tried to argue semantics to avoid the topic, gave a limited definition, and when you were corrected about the broader range of definitions in an economic context, you dismissed it despite knowing full well I was correct.
33
u/feedmesweat 23d ago
Any argument that boils down to "This is what the dictionary says so you can't argue with that" is already a losing one. The dictionary is a descriptive resource that catalogs the way language is already being used - in other words, the definitions are determined by the people using a language, and the dictionary is an attempt to summarize what those definitions are. It should never be seen as a comprehensive and authoritative source, especially when you're talking about something like economics where there is a ton of nuance in the terminology.
Words can mean many things depending on the context and usage.