In my previous post I tried to clarify the issue of the apparent conflict of interests of the buyer and seller of something on the market. Although each of them would like more favorable terms for himself (the buyer – a lower price, and the seller – a higher price), which could possibly be read as a conflict of interest, the fact that the transaction was concluded proves beyond any doubt that in place of the conflict of interests of the seller and the buyer, their COMMON INTEREST appeared. Had it been otherwise, this transaction could not have taken place. And yet that is the COMMON OBJECTIVE of both counterparties. This is what each person comes to the market for, to buy and sell there ( this is the intermediate aim) and to be able to satisfy his needs with what he receives from his transaction partner (this is the ultimate aim). And what he gives to the counterparty for this aim is the necessary COST of satisfying those needs AT THAT TIME AND PLACE. This applies to both contractors, although each has different needs. Each need can only be satisfied if all the conditions are met, that is, if ALL the COSTS leading to this aim are incurred at a given time and place. This includes costs in the purely financial sense (expressed in money), as well as time spent, physical and intellectual effort, the need for possible separation from loved ones or giving up other aims, etc., and the risk of failure. This applies to such an aim as, for example, buying a carrot at Ladybug (here separation is unlikely to be necessary), as well as climbing to the top of K2 or flying to the moon. Whoever is unwilling to incur such costs, the aim will not be achieved.
For the validity of this thesis, it is of no importance that when going, for example, to “Lidl”, no one NEGOTIATES with the cashier the prices, but – seeing them next to each commodity on the shelf – agrees to pay that much for each commodity put in the basket, that is, agrees to bear the costs necessary to satisfy the specified needs with these goods. On the other hand, the owner of “Lidl” AGREED IN ADVANCE to such prices as were set for particular goods by the manager of the store in question, employed by him. In each case, the finalization of the transaction is proof that this COMMON AIM was achieved at the LOWEST COST in a given time and place.
In conclusion, the condition for the existence of a market is the COMMON INTERESTS of its participants. If it were otherwise, the market would never have been created.
To be cont’d.