Okay, I didn't gain much traction then. Sort of my point was to redirect from using the term "market", as it can get confused, and go a little more pure economics.
Not novel. I didn't make it up.
Here is your question on which I had hoped to gain ground. In this example we have a single supplier and a single consumer. The consumer has found the supplier and a price was found to allow the transaction to take place.
My point here was that you cannot know the variables used in the economic calculus that took place only that in a free market (uh, there is that term) an exchange took place so we know that economic efficiency was improved because all resources involved in the exchange found a higher utility.
So, given the above explanation I would argue that you are wrong and that the market was efficient because economic efficiency was improved. I didn't say this because I know you want to start including external conditions on the example given. The example does not give us any room for this. Perhaps there are no more such books to be had at any store at any price. Maybe that particular book was the one book that docmirror's Father used and holds a great sentimental value to. We have no idea and we cannot just add conditions.
A buyer found a seller, a price was struck, an exchange happened to everyone's benefit. That is efficiency.
You just described what brokers do for a living. And then...
Not enough information to answer your question academically but we can assume that in a free market where this kind of thing happens and everyone is better off, then yes.
It happens every day. People buy their EverReady AAs at Walgreen's because they don't want to travel 2 blocks to Walmart for the 15% savings. Walgreen's sells them at that premium because it fits a "market".
Remember, you cannot know all of the variables in the economic calculus that leads to a transaction that you are not a party to. Stop thinking of economics in terms of dollars and it will make more sense. <little giggle there>
I would disagree.
I'm at a loss as to the definition you are using in your question here. A textbook transaction is like a toothpaste transaction is like a whistle transaction is like a hamburger transaction is like a ...
Economic goods and services provided by producers and used by consumers all exchanged in a market process whereby people knock off their wants and needs by some subjective scale of their own design.
I don't know how to order transactions from most efficient to least efficient so I have no idea how to answer your question.
(but I can look at markets; for example, a socialist market system is less efficient than a free market system.)
Anyway, I hope we are having fun.
Again, you don't seem to understand "efficient markets" and the pricing mechanisms built in. You keep trying to divert the conversation to other discussions on other topics, none of which have to do with the thread topic of efficiently pricing planes and the market being efficient for finding pricing and allowing transactions to take place.
The Textbooks is the PERFECT example of an inefficient market. There is generally 1 local seller of the book (the Campus Bookstore), there are few substitute products (the Professor requires the 5th Edition, so the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions of the same book are now worthless.)
Now, there may be used books available that will add efficiency to the Textbook market for some specific class on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 10:am in Room C-345 of the Econ/Business Building. But, still, hardly an efficient market, as there may not be enough used books.
In the example given of the $77 retail book (assumes an adequate supply of books on the shelf in the Campus Bookstore), a classroom full of students not selling the professor a book until $90 shows how inefficient the market is. There should have been kids willing to sell at $78 (assume no sales taxes, etc..), and more kids willing to sell when the premium got to the amount required for a 12 pack of Keystone Light.
And, if the market was really efficient, one kid would have heard from his frat brothers that the prof always buys a book from the kids, and he would have bought 2 books, with the purpose of making a quick buck selling the book to the prof, or, if an ass-kisser, selling it for less than $77.
And, to prove the market is not efficient, and this is where the other poster struggled, the Buyer of the $90 book would likely NOT be able to sell the book at the same $90 immediately, or, likely ever.
I am not sure if you have ever stepped foot on a campus, or, if you have paid for a kid's textbooks, but the terms "efficient market" or "fair value", or anything similar are NEVER uttered in respect to the whole textbook scam/market. There are reasons that guys like Marc Cuban and Jeff Bezos are trying to turn that market upside down, as they know the market is INEFFICIENT and they hope to exploit some of that inefficiency.
Now, if I want an "efficient market", I can place an order for 10,000 bushels of wheat and quickly get a "best price" that is EXACTLY and FAIRLY an indication of the "value" of the wheat. Similarly, I can then immediately turn around and sell the same 10,000 bushels of wheat at a price that is similarly discovered and is current, and fair.
I would argue the "efficiency" of the used airplane market is more similar to the textbook market than the grain market. With sub-markets of 182's, Cherokees, 172's, and a handful of other models may be more efficient than the market for less desirable models.
(A good conversation.)
However, I understand your point about a currency not backed by actual hard assets. It gives many people pause from time to time. Most of them are far right zealots like Ron Paul. That should be worrying you.
Sorry man. I'll shut up now.