pull down to refresh
I think you’re saying the utility function doesn’t change, which is probably false but also unknowable and not what I was reacting to.
I thought you were saying the participants’ utility levels are unaffected by the sale, which would be odd.
Seems like a "quantity demanded increases" vs. "demand curve increases" kind of linguistic ambiguity we're running into. Everyone gets tripped up over this!
Utility function doesn't change (necessarily). Utility levels change. Marginal utility changes due to being on a different point on the curve.
Do you normally refer to the function as “utility” instead of the level?
Not sure. Never really thought about that.
I think I was reacting to Voskuil's use of the language, and specifically "reduces the relative utility of the sold coin." The language there seems ambiguous, and in my mind I was interpreting him as referring to the utility function of either party not changing.
Utility drives action, not the other way around.
I suppose one could imagine a world in which the sale itself affects market participants' expectations or utility over an asset. But I think the burden of proof would be on the person who wants to argue from that point of view.
A simpler reason for transactions is that peoples' beliefs/utilities change, which cause demand/supply changes that then drive marketplace transactions.