Why? I don't understand why these aren't just other prices.
I'm not trolling, I'm asking for clarification. It's like you just said to me "3 is a number but 0 is not a number." I literally don't understand your position.
Also is $1 free in this context?
Note I'm responding to your critique of the low bid, you said the reason it was bad was because you're taking less than they're "willing" to pay. If that's really your justification, it would apply to non-free bids as well. Maybe that's not your actual justification though...
Sorry if we're talking past each other. My perspectives on this are highly shaped by my experiences with economics courses, especially micro. Really recommend working through some of that material, which can be found free online. It might change the way you look at the world: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/economics/14-121-microeconomic-th...
No, its not. "I can do it for free" is an instance of "I can do it cheaper". Its quite possible for someone to have a non-negative (zero or positive) net utility from an act which gives someone else a net positive utility, so that the "price" they are willing to charge for that task is zero or even negative (that is, they are willing to pay for the opportunity.) That's no different than the variation in utilities between suppliers with a net negative utility who are willing to do the task for a variety of positive payments.
Zero or negative net costs are lower than positive net costs. So "I'll do it for free" (or even, "I'll pay you for the opportunity to do it") are instances of "I can do it cheaper."
> "I can do it for free" means that I'm ignoring any of my costs.
No, it doesn't; assuming rationality it means that the net costs are nonpositive, not that they are ignored (which would be irrational.)
Of course, it could be the result of ignoring some or all costs, but so could "I can do it cheaper" when there is still some charge for the work. There's nothing special about the zero charge case.