No, there are clearly real problems with market based economies and issues of social responsibility. Selling plastic block toys, for which there are cheap enough alternatives, doesn't really seem to fit in this picture though.
Your original comment basically just stated the same tautology four different ways, as if it were the last word on the matter. Besides judging the large-scale results of the system (eg your reference to 'social responsibility'), we're also entitled to judge the small-scale details vis-a-vis our own heuristics, even when they are at odds with a market's state.
I'm not sure I understand what your point is. I explained why Legos are not overpriced, and made some probably unnecessary judgement statements about why people would call it overpriced. I didn't say Legos are not overpriced because they are not overpriced, I said they're not overpriced because their products are selling. Where is the tautology?
Your original comment is basically just different ways of saying that Legos are priced appropriately because Legos are selling, and Legos are selling because they're priced appropriately. While this is the extent of the analysis in terms of simple market mechanics, your main point seems to be to insist that the only way to judge pricing is how the market responds. This is in fact trivially wrong because any market is in fact a sum of individual actors who each form their own judgment.
The net effect of your comment is to further confuse the distinction between what is expedient/existing and what is right, and to discourage people from developing an independent sense of the latter (in the same vein as "might makes right" and "technological determinism").
It's a basic tenet of consensual transactions, which you allude to:
> people have voted with their wallets and have said that Legos are worth greater than the sum of their parts
Also,
> Legos are priced at what they sell at"
If you're taking issue that it's not a direct iron-clad "tautology", then please insert whatever less-stringent term you please that indicates circular reasoning by which a process supposedly justifies itself.
> people have voted with their wallets and have said that Legos are worth greater than the sum of their parts
That's half a quote. The point you misquoted was very specific, regarding Legos being priced higher than their material costs works, because people value Legos for more than the plastic they're made with. That's not a tautology, that's a simple observation. This is without a doubt the worst conversation I've ever had about Legos.
I said "allude to", which still applies to your whole quote.
This "conversation" has been terrible because you've been nitpicking for seemingly its own sake, while completely ignoring any substance of what I've said.
No it doesn't apply, and thus the substance of whatever you've said doesn't appeal to me. It fails a heuristic of mine I'll call "throws out false accusations after misrepresenting what I've said".
If you don't believe that a product's price effects its sales, then you could have simply stated this several comments back, rather than role-playing a computer by placing critical importance on the form of my saying why I assumed you agreed with that widely-held belief. Then we could have actually talked about the actual non-meta issue.
Well there is a certain logic to markets. If LEGO is overpriced, a competitor should be able to offer a cheaper alternative. So if you claim LEGO is overpriced, you have to explain why no cheaper competitor emerged.
Maybe there are reasons (for example patents - but the competitor would not have to be the same kind of thing, just the same category).
I wonder how do you reason without the theory of markets? Serious question!
