Posted tagged ‘Greedy Consumer’

Tiger Drops Out Of Masters + Ticket Prices Fall = Value Is Subjective.

April 7, 2014

File:Tiger Woods Masters 2006.jpg


This article titled, Masters’ Ticket Prices Drop In Wake Of Tiger”s Absence, by Dan Wetzel, at, shows that value is not objective it is subjective. Value exists in the mind of each individual, it does not exist in an object. I could produce the best mouse trap ever invented for a price of x, but if no one is willing to pay x,  it has no value to anyone other than me. If you offered a sports fan  free tickets to either Saturdays third round at the Masters, or Saturdays Final Four games, he would make the decision based on which event he valued more, not on the monetary value of the tickets.


What does the drop in the price of the tickets mean? It doesn’t mean that people don’t value the Masters tournament, it just means that some people value it less when Tiger is not playing. After a bad back forced Tiger to withdraw from a tournament a month ago, demand for Masters tickets started to slow as people began to speculate that he wouldn’t play in this years Masters. Demand really dropped off when he officially withdrew from the Masters. This drop in demand revealed itself as the price for tickets began falling. The law of supply and demand is always in play, and in this case it says; if demand is low and the supply is fixed, the price will fall, and conversely if demand is high and the supply is fixed, the price will rise.


When you hear people say “they wouldn’t pay a particular athlete a particular amount of  money”, or “this athlete isn’t worth that much”, they obviously don’t understand subjective value, or supply and demand. The reason Tiger gets paid more than any golfer is because the value he creates is in high demand. There is a high number of people who value what he produces. Put simply, when there is a fixed supply of Tiger Woods, and a high demand for him, his price rises. If there weren’t enough consumers to voluntarily pay for the value they subjectively think Tiger produces for them, he wouldn’t get paid these “outrageous” sums of money. The consumer ultimately sets all prices in the process of production, and this includes the wages or salaries of all workers. So if you think certain professions don’t get payed enough, blame the greedy consumer, and if you think other professions get paid too much, blame the generous consumer.

Related Article – In a previous post, Ticket Scalping; The True Free Market In Action, we talked about voluntary exchanges from the stand point that each person involved in the exchange values what they receive more than what they give up, or no exchange would take place. Value is increased in voluntary exchanges.

Related ArticleSpontaneous Order = Free Market Economy, by

Related ArticleSpontaneous Order Utilizes More Knowledge Than Central Planning Could Ever Hope To Utilize, by

Related ArticleSpontaneous Order More Complex Than Top Down Planning, by

Related ArticleSpontaneous Order Demonstrated By Traffic With No Signals, by


The New, Old, Buzz Words, “Income Inequality”

January 13, 2014

142763 600 New Years Resolutions cartoons


As the 2014 mid-term election cycle begins, big government politicians are starting to use the phrase “income inequality” as a talking point. It must be the new focus group tested phrase that appeals to emotions, which is why politicians are using it. The political solutions concerning “income inequality” elicit an emotional frenzy among the economically ignorant, that is difficult to overcome with logical analysis about the economic reality of “income equality”.


The politically self-righteous start from the premise that income inequality is a problem with the free market that shouldn’t exist and something has to be done about it. The political solutions they invoke are simply the forcing of what they want done for the voluntary decisions individuals have made in the market process. These solutions always benefit the politicians at the expense of everyone, including the people they are purporting to help. The invented problem of “income inequality” isn’t a problem with the laws of economics. Inequality in general, and income inequality in particular, are realities of life, and putting the word income in front of the word inequality doesn’t change that reality. These invented problems are made worse when we try to solve them through the political process.


The simple reason there is income inequality is because people aren’t equal. People have different skills, different desires concerning the use of those skills, different desires on how productive they want to be, with all of these being influenced by where they were born, who their parents are, how much education they have, and who they gravitated to outside of their family structure, among many factors. Could a crab fisherman in Alaska develop the skills or have the desire to grow oranges, or could an orange grower in Florida develop the skills or have the desire to fish for crab. How many hockey players come from the state of Hawaii, and how many surfers come from the state of Minnesota. The fact that we are individuals, means we are not the same, which means we are not equal.


Another reason for income inequality is the consumer decides peoples salaries. What a person gets paid isn’t decided by the boss, it is decided by what the consumer will pay for a  particular good, or service. The price of a good isn’t decided by adding up the cost of all the material and labor used to produce it, and the consumer pays that price. What really happens is the entrepreneur takes a risk thinking that consumers will pay a certain price for a particular good and then goes about trying to produce that good at a cost lower than the price he thinks the  consumer will pay. The wages of workers are determined by what the consumer will pay for the finished product. The cost of labor is part of the cost of production, nothing more nothing less. Marxist thinking has so permeated our society that we think labor is sacred and shouldn’t be ruled by something as heartless as economic laws. When the cost of production rises, businesses can’t just raise prices to cover the cost, if this were the case no business would ever go under. Put another way if business could have higher total revenue by simply raising prices they would have already raised them. If you are mad about income inequality, don’t point your finger at the greedy owner of the business for not paying a higher salary, blame the greedy consumer for not being willing to pay more for the product. This Peter Schiff Video: Will Wal-Mart Customers Support Higher Wages For Wal-Mart Workers? , at, will show you how eager people are to pay higher prices for their consumer goods.

In the next post we will discuss two ways politicians try to fight income inequality, 1) Raising the minimum wage and 2) Extending unemployment benefits. Do they really work, or do they benefit the politicians prospects for reelection?