Posted By:
CoreyRS.hanus"But isn't market value best defined as the price on which a willing buyer and willing seller agree? So if I am willing to pay 3000 for a card, and I am shilled up to 3000, and I would have won the card for only 2500 absent shilling, why is 2500 a more "accurate" measure of market value?"
From my understanding of economics, "accuracy" (in my parlance--"efficiency") is based on all willing parties having accurate and complete information. So in the example you give IF the buyer knows the next highest bidder/buyer is one increment below 2500 and the seller would be willing to sell it at 2500, then market value is 2500. Or, to phrase it another way, IMO no economist will define market value as determined by fraudulent conduct. In the example you give, yes the person might be willing to pay 3000, but he is a buyer at greater than market value.