I have been juggling with trying to understand you. Perhaps as much as you me.

I think i have something we can both understand 'trashiness of value' could be measured partly as measure of its proximity to unessential processes to artificially inflate value. This is a robbery not of cops and robbers and masks but of the ability for a person to be disguised as clever and take advantage of peoples sense of trust and hope for positive market behavior. I do believe it is destroying us.

Another attempt: my views are an attempt to present the value system/logic of why we might be happier, more successful when our transactions are more aligned with Real Value than Perceived Value. Youre welcome to help me improve this. We both want the same thing, it seems. We just are seeing different roads to the same successful/free choice result. Or maybe its more accurate to say that i see a risk/or a loss in a behavior within the widely accepted system of consumer\producer behaviors. An opportunity to optimize.

Value is arbitrary. But we are trying to describe specific types of value. And debate their merit.

And, my point is that as passive bystanders, we don't have any input into the agreement that those two parties arrive at for their arbitrary value. As long as they both are consenting, and satisfied with the exchange, it is ethical whatever value they decide.

In what world? If that were true why cant i go buy automatic machine guns, lsd, and drive counterfeit ferraris with rock climbing suspension down snow covered ski areas while shooting at the sky, assuming me and the sellers agree to the deal.... because we are trying to not live in todays version of a game of thrones world.

And no joke this activity sounds awesome

Wow, that was a big departure from sunglasses, for which my argument holds, and obviously cannot be refuted by you.

Edit: And, you can go and do all those things you mentioned. And my argument holds. There are consequences, though...

Ok. Please talk to me like I am the student.

- where did your argument suceed? - where i say 'this deceptive' transaction is not good for society. I agree this is subjective. - I present a wildly inflated case, based on your criteria 'seller buyer agree' to present that this formula would not lead to a good world, destruction/chaos, self endangerment. - I believe our disconnect is not where we fail to align argument paths but backing up, where we fail to agree on a definition of what is 'good'. Would you like to take the lead?

Appreciate your time!