hh on Nostr: That's not an economic argument. If you want to discuss fluffy unicorns and fairies, ...
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.
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.