pull down to refresh

I’m not quite sure that is the point he is trying to make. I tried the willingness to trade argument and was denied. I thought that that would be proof enough, but, nope. Did you try the marginal unit argument with him? I cannot understand the argument he is trying to make about music qua music. You always have to invest at least time and money for an instrument to produce music. Is it just that with digital reproduction makes it difficult to get paid for creating music? People are willing to pay for it and derive more from the music than the money they spend. That is self-evident.
The idea is that abundant things, like air or ideas, have no economic value because they are not scarce.
My defense of that idea would be that economic action is about relieving felt dissatisfaction (Mises' great definition). Since we cannot lack things that are abundant, they cannot be economically valuable.
I did try to explain the point about marginal units vs the entire stock, but he didn't bite.
reply
Yeah, no dissatisfaction with the situation of free goods, therefore no economic action on the part of the actors.
I don’t know why he doesn’t bite on the marginal explainations. After all, it was the subjectivist, marginalist revolution Menger, et al did.
reply