egafd.com

That's not true. Obviously you have use for the sheep, something that the goat doesn't give you. Just because it's a subjective value doesn't make it any less real. Similarly, I wouldn't trade my beloved goat if I didn't feel the exchange wouldn't benefit me in some way.

Perhaps you like sheep better and it doesn't show in the books that sheep are worth more in the economic sense of owning livestock. Considering your house, and mine, and everyone elses, is most likely filled to the brim with somewhat expensive shit that has little to no purpose or value, the point is moot. Your TV isn't worth anything in subsahara. The same applies for every commodity you can think of. Their worth is completely subjective.

Suggesting that trading is beneficial to both parties has nothing to do with capitalism. What it implies (and that alone), is that commodies are exchanged for their subjective (or a subjective implied) value for both parties. Trade doesn't make everyone richer either. I'm sure people who thought Zimbabwe was a good pick on Forex a few years back will gladly attest to this.

Your goat/sheep example presents an argument for subjective value, nothing else.

If you're really Keith you'll be telling us you have a degree in economics next. Keith has degrees coming out of his ears!