That's not an economic argument. If you want to discuss fluffy unicorns and fairies, that's totally OK. But then do not misrepresent V4V as an economic model.
I actually think *it is* an economic model, and gave one case in which it does comply with the definition of a free trade, which requires that both parties get more from the exchange than they initially had. The seller prices its work at ZERO, so anything they get at all is by definition more than they originally had, ergo you have a valid trade.
The issue is those who have a different expectation and end up "losing out" with the trade because they expect people to somehow pay more than they themselves ask for. That's not a "trade", it's entitlement, charity, emotional blackmail... there are many possible definitions depending on each person's concrete attitude.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
No, it's not an economic argument, it's an argument on what one deems valuable, which isn't easily condensed down to an economists spreadsheet.
I'd hate to be in a relationship in which every act has an economic number tied to it. You washed the dishes, so how much does your girlfriend or wife owe you? And how much should you be compensated for shoveling your neighbors driveway? Do you keep track of how much you paid for lunch when you got the tab for some friends, because you don't want to devalue yourself you know?
If everything comes down to an economic value, it's a sad life to live. I give freely, because what I get back in terms of friendship, community, other's talents and contributions, and perhaps even monetary contribution is more valuable than what I'm putting into it.
If you keep reducing v4v down to a relationship between a 'buyer' and a 'seller' you've shown you don't understand what v4v is.