Yes, however only the consumer of the goods can determine if it is a good, bad or neutral. For instance: fluoride that THEY put in the water is supposedly a good for the population, but it is a bad for the fertilizer industry because it is a toxic waste. Tooth decay is bad for the consumer but a good for the dentist and toothpaste industries. What is good for the goose is not always good for the gander in this case.

Rothbardian_fanatic

Yep. I think we're both trying to make subjectivist claims, though.

Even though prices are objective, there is a sense in which they help us classify things:

The subjective element that's missing from this is the willingness to pay. Some things are bads for one person, but goods for another: industrial waste products that are an input for another industry, for instance.

Price only tells us the status of the marginal unit of that good, rather than the entire stock.

BooksAndArticles

Music Has No Economic Value; Convince Me Otherwise (TDE, Joakim Book)

denlillaapan

Yep. I think we're both trying to make subjectivist claims, though.

Even though prices are objective, there is a sense in which they help us classify things:
- Goods have positive prices
- Bads have negative prices
- Neuters have zero prices.

The subjective element that's missing from this is the willingness to pay. Some things are bads for one person, but goods for another: industrial waste products that are an input for another industry, for instance.

Price only tells us the status of the marginal unit of that good, rather than the entire stock.