如果“一价定律”成立，世界该是怎样？

另外楼主举的卖饮料的例子，更简单了。请教一下王府井的门面多少钱的租金？其他地方呢？如果说没贸易壁垒，你随便找个地方练摊遇到不是城管就是黑社会的。不知楼主是否真的领悟了生活。金融基本定律的意思是“天下没有一个地方很容易就能持续的捡到钱”，如果你推翻了“一价定律”就是推翻了这点，创造了制造金钱的“永动机”。<br>holdser
&nbsp;金钱&nbsp;+10
&nbsp;好文章&nbsp;2009-5-16 11:23:22

一价成立的最基本前提是no arbitrage

以下是引用serkise在2009-5-14 13:23:00的发言：
一价成立的最基本前提是no arbitrage

无套利不能保证一价，楼主犯的就是这个错误

以下是引用剑月轩如梦在2009-5-14 12:41:00的发言：
另外楼主举的卖饮料的例子，更简单了。请教一下王府井的门面多少钱的租金？其他地方呢？如果说没贸易壁垒，你随便找个地方练摊遇到不是城管就是黑社会的。不知楼主是否真的领悟了生活。金融基本定律的意思是“天下没有一个地方很容易就能持续的捡到钱”，如果你推翻了“一价定律”就是推翻了这点，创造了制造金钱的“永动机”。

哈哈，你终于想明白其中的道理了。我的目的已经达到了，既然你明白销售成本也会影响价格，你为什么还支持一价定律呢？一价定律里可没有提到销售成本啊!

或者说要想让一价定律成立，至少还应该加一个假设前提，“销售没有成本”。

但没有加这个前提假设的一价定律就是错的！

其实，要想让一价定律成立，还要加很多其它假设条件，我以后还会举其它例子，你慢慢就会明白。

我最终想说明的是，如果一价定律成立，那么世界就面目全非了。

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-5-14 15:14:56编辑过]

那么是否可以理解为“一价+交易费用”？

以下是引用serkise在2009-5-15 11:04:00的发言：

那么是否可以理解为“一价+交易费用”？

无套利+复制策略的存在性（包括交易费用可忽略）

以下是引用cntjphy在2009-5-14 15:14:00的发言：

以下是引用剑月轩如梦在2009-5-14 12:41:00的发言：
另外楼主举的卖饮料的例子，更简单了。请教一下王府井的门面多少钱的租金？其他地方呢？如果说没贸易壁垒，你随便找个地方练摊遇到不是城管就是黑社会的。不知楼主是否真的领悟了生活。金融基本定律的意思是“天下没有一个地方很容易就能持续的捡到钱”，如果你推翻了“一价定律”就是推翻了这点，创造了制造金钱的“永动机”。

哈哈，你终于想明白其中的道理了。我的目的已经达到了，既然你明白销售成本也会影响价格，你为什么还支持一价定律呢？一价定律里可没有提到销售成本啊!

或者说要想让一价定律成立，至少还应该加一个假设前提，“销售没有成本”。

但没有加这个前提假设的一价定律就是错的！

其实，要想让一价定律成立，还要加很多其它假设条件，我以后还会举其它例子，你慢慢就会明白。

我最终想说明的是，如果一价定律成立，那么世界就面目全非了。

Law of one price

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The law of one price is an economic law stated as: "In an efficient market all identical goods must have only one price." The law of one price relates to the outcome of free trade and globalization. It is the theory that some day all areas of the world will make the same amount of money as every other part of the world for equal work/product quality.

The intuition for this law is that all sellers will flock to the highest prevailing price, and all buyers to the lowest current market price. In an efficient market the convergence on one price is instant.

＜script type="text/javascript"＞＜/script＞

  An example: Financial markets

Commodities can be traded on financial markets, where there will be a single offer price, and bid price. Although there is a small spread between these two values the law of one price applies (to each). No trader will sell the commodity at a lower price than the market maker's offer-level or buy at a higher price than the market maker's bid-level. In either case moving away from the prevailing price would either leave no takers, or be charity.

In the derivatives market the law applies to financial instruments which appear different, but which resolve to the same set of cash flows; see Rational pricing. Thus:

"a security must have a single price, no matter how that security is created. For example, if an option can be created using two different sets of underlying securities, then the total price for each would be the same or else an arbitrage opportunity would exist." A similar arguement can be used by considering arrow securites as eluded to by Arrow and Debrue (1944).[1]
   

  Where the law does not apply

• The law does not apply intertemporally, so prices for the same item can be different at different times in one market. The application of the law to financial markets in the example above is obscured by the fact that the market maker's prices are continually moving in liquid markets. However, at the moment each trade is executed, the law is in force (it would normally be against exchange rules to break it).
• The law also need not apply if buyers have less than perfect information about where to find the lowest price. In this case, sellers face a tradeoff between the frequency and the profitability of their sales. That is, firms may be indifferent between posting a high price (thus selling infrequently, because most consumers will search for a lower one) and a low price (at which they will sell more often, but earn less profit per sale).^[1]
    
• The Balassa-Samuelson effect argues that the law of one price is not applicable to all goods internationally, because some goods are not tradable. It argues that the consumption may be cheaper in some countries than others, because nontradables (especially land and labor) are cheaper in less developed countries. This can make a typical consumption basket cheaper in a less developed country, even if some goods in that basket have their prices equalized by international trade.

  Apparent violations

• The best-known example of an apparent violation of the law was Royal Dutch / Shell shares. After merging in 1907, holders of Royal Dutch Petroleum (traded in Amsterdam) and Shell Transport shares (traded in London) were entitled to 60% and 40% respectively of all future profits. Royal Dutch shares should therefore automatically have been priced at 50% more than Shell shares. However, they diverged from this by up to 15%.^[2] This discrepancy disappeared with their final merger in 2005.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

麻烦你再仔细看看解释，什么是一价定律，然后动动你的脑子，不要再在这里大言不惭~~~

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-5-15 13:50:35编辑过]

通过王府井的这个例子，我们应该悟出一个道理，真正驱动真实世界的价格趋于均衡（均衡是指各地的价格趋于稳定，而不是趋于一价）的动力不是什么一价定律，而是利润率趋同原理。

也就是说为什么王府＃地区的价格稳定在5元而其它地区稳定在3元，是应为两地销售商的利润率是大致相同的。如果某地的利润率偏高，就会引来销售商迁移，从而影响价格，最终使各地的利润率大致趋同。

一价定律只可能在面目全非的虚幻世界里成立，在真实的世界里，一价定律和利润率趋同原理根本就是矛盾的，怎么可能成立呢？

你在卖5元的门口竖块招牌卖3块，然后运足够量的饮料过来，你看看最终会不会5块的也卖3块？？随便豆腐干的文章还好意思发出来，跟你解释你也不听。还好意思正儿八经的取个什么圣弈投资 。。。。

以下是引用kgb_yuan在2009-5-15 14:24:00的发言：

你在卖5元的门口竖块招牌卖3块，然后运足够量的饮料过来，你看看最终会不会5块的也卖3块？？随便豆腐干的文章还好意思发出来，跟你解释你也不听。还好意思正儿八经的取个什么圣弈投资 。。。。

请你仔细思考一下你的设想是否可行？

不要性口雌黄嘛。