There are lots of things I would pay more for than it would cost me to produce since there are lots things I have no desire/interest/talent to produce.
> Competition among producers drives price toward
cost. Which also includes the reproduction costs
of all labour, land and capital.
Got it.
> I ask again, is this a serious question??
Yes, because I wonder if there has ever actually been a free market or whether all markets that claimed to be free were actually unfree due to the regulations and restrictions that existed in the real world. In that way, I wonder if the idea of a free market is just a theoretical notion that could never be manifested in real life.
> If you grow tomatoes and can grow $10 worth with your
bare hands, but $100 with a shovel the marginal utility
of the shovel is $90.
Okay, so I would be willing to spend under $90 or less (preferrably less) to buy the shovel that will increase the amount of money I can get
> If shovels cost $10 to bring to market, in a free market
you would pay me no more than that.
What if I love the color red and want to have a red shovel? I might be willing to pay more for the red shovel even though I could get a blue one for less.
> However if I had a monopoly in the supply of shovels I
could charge you as much as $89 per harvest to rent it and
you would still be $1 ahead. This is the logic of Capitalism.
Got it. Capitalism wants with the help of the state to keep prices at an artifically high level. You also rent shovels instead of selling them so people keep having to come to you. (Which is actually how Panavision works -- you cannot actually buy a movie camera -- even the studios can only rent them.)
>Now if I can kick you off the land too, and rent you both the
land and the shovel, then I can simply pay you your physical
reproduction costs and nothing more, as the alternative to not
working for me is starvation and homelessness.
That makes sense.
Brian