Quote from: username18333 on August 21, 2015, 04:33:44 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on August 21, 2015, 03:50:10 PM

My guess is that you were trying to establish that in a cost-basis theory of market exchange that any amount of one for the other would not be "fair"... or something else?

The net losses of the foremost fellow (of the OP's hypothetical) were less than those of all others (as iterated above); therefore, the jist of the OP's conjecture (see the citation below) is, to a degree, accurate. (Note: to clarify this position, in departing with the capital that "foremost fellow" valued in excess of what he forsook to acquire the capital, his successor [in the hypothetical series of exchanges] suffered more in the way of economic loss than did the "foremost fellow," for his gains matched his losses.)

Quote from: jacknimble on August 19, 2015, 02:24:52 AM

In the end of the story, isn't the only person who benefits the guy who did nothing, got a pot coin, and convinced some sucker to give him a free gram of pot for it?

You could have simply said that I had guessed correctly.

For anyone else that might be reading this thread, if you always value things based upon what they cost you, rather than what you may gain by parting with them, you will restrict your opportunities.