5 ms·

>He makes a bad assumption at the very beginning by assuming that 'good money' holds its value. I'll argue that most of the inequality we experience in the worl

by nickff 11y ago

>He makes a bad assumption at the very beginning by assuming that 'good money' holds its value. I'll argue that most of the inequality we experience in the world today is a result of money holding too much value! When money holds value, it is hoarded. When it is hoarded, it is unproductive. Whether inequality is morally/ethically good, bad, or neutral is a normative judgement; which is to say that envy is viewpoint-dependent, not an objective truth which must be minimized for any obvious reason. How can you criticize him for not agreeing with a particular normative judgement? This is not an intellectual or positive failure, it is a normative difference. Moreover, even if this criticism was valid, your assertion that "[w]hen money holds value, it is hoarded", is probably true (though you use the pejorative term hoard which puts your objectivity into question); however devaluing currencies forces people to 'hoard' real estate and other physical stores of value, which are actually productive (as opposed to paper or plastic specie which are not very useful). >Money can be used as a measure of potential utility, but you can't just open it like a bottle of water and drink it all at one time. Why not? Apart from this analogy making little sense, there is no reason to believe that one should not spend all one's money in a single 'binge' as opposed to rationing spending. >Instead we should think of a unit of currency as a set of potential utility that is stretched across time from now to the time X in the future. Again, there is no particular reason to believe this. You seem to be asserting things as true with no reasoning to support your beliefs. >When you think of money in this way, it become obvious that money should decay as time goes by. Good money losses [sic] value at a constant, manageable, predictable rate because the amount of utility that the human race can produce in the future is a significant chunk less at the end of a than it is at the beginning of that day. All the evidence I have ever seen indicates that human production, consumption and productivity are constantly increasing (though not monotonically), so you must provide a rationale for this assertion. >If a dollar is held at the end of a day by the same person that held it at the beginning of the day, some utility was left on the table. This doesn't make any sense at all. If you were to say that fields being left fallow, machines being unused, or books left on the shelf was a waste of potential utility, you would likely be correct, but small pieces of paper and metal are not of much use to anyone, and not spending them simply increases the value of the money that is trading hands.

skilesare 11y ago
>Whether inequality is morally/ethically good, bad, or neutral is a normative judgement; which is to say that envy is viewpoint-dependent, not an objective truth which must be minimized for any obvious reason. How can you criticize him for not agreeing with a particular normative judgement? This is not an intellectual or positive failure, it is a normative difference. Moreover, even if this criticism was valid, your assertion that "[w]hen money holds value, it is hoarded", is probably true (though you use the pejorative term hoard which puts your objectivity into question); however devaluing currencies forces people to 'hoard' real estate and other physical stores of value, which are actually productive (as opposed to paper or plastic specie which are not very useful). Good points! I need to lay off the exaggerated vocab. I think that land is a special case. Most other things and actually most land these days, do require up keep. This upkeep is usually provided by the bottom level of society as those with enough resources to 'hoard' are usually not the ones cutting the grass. Most things have a built in decay. Gessell proposed a special system for land that isn't really in line with my views on property rights, but clearly something needs to be in place to avoid unproductive land accumulation. Property taxes work pretty well for this. One's actual ability to predict the value of other 'physical stores of value' well enough to actually use them as stores of value over long periods of time is probably over estimated. >Why not? Apart from this analogy making little sense, there is no reason to believe that one should not spend all one's money in a single 'binge' as opposed to rationing spending. Of course you can spend it all at one time, but generally, the thing you are spending it on did not pop into being at that instant, in the condition of maximum value. I guess my point is that if we are going to use money as a metaphor for exchanging goods and services, it should be a good metaphor. Goods and services degrade over time. Money should too. >Again, there is no particular reason to believe this. You seem to be asserting things as true with no reasoning to support your beliefs. Hey! I'm making the metaphors here. :) Yes, this is a though exercise. Play them out to their conclusions. Or better yet, run the model yourself: http://catallax.info/news/2015/4/19/a-published-model-of-hypercapitalism http://catallax.info/news/2015/4/19/a-published-model-of-hyp... >All the evidence I have ever seen indicates that human production, consumption and productivity are constantly increasing (though not monotonically), so you must provide a rationale for this assertion. I'm actually relying on this fact. Here is another way to think of things....If I produce a unit of work today...and I want to convert it to cash. How long into the future should that unit of work be good for? I don't know that there is a right answer. I think the line moves as society changes, but I think there is a line. If I stick that money in the bank, even at 0 interest, in an Ideal Money world with 0 inflation, and live off the state for the next 50 years, should I be able to take it out and buy the same amount of goods with it? Is that the society we want? We get to decide the society we want to live in...It is all about aligning incentives. ?This doesn't make any sense at all. If you were to say that fields being left fallow, machines being unused, or books left on the shelf was a waste of potential utility, you would likely be correct, but small pieces of paper and metal are not of much use to anyone, and not spending them simply increases the value of the money that is trading hands. Tell that to the socially awkward scientist who has a risky, but ultimately valid cure for cancer in his head, but can't get financing to save his(or your) life. Access to capital is a real problem to solve.

by nickff 11y ago

skilesare 11y ago

>Whether inequality is morally/ethically good, bad, or neutral is a normative judgement; which is to say that envy is viewpoint-dependent, not an objective truth which must be minimized for any obvious reason. How can you criticize him for not agreeing with a particular normative judgement? This is not an intellectual or positive failure, it is a normative difference. Moreover, even if this criticism was valid, your assertion that "[w]hen money holds value, it is hoarded", is probably true (though you use the pejorative term hoard which puts your objectivity into question); however devaluing currencies forces people to 'hoard' real estate and other physical stores of value, which are actually productive (as opposed to paper or plastic specie which are not very useful). Good points! I need to lay off the exaggerated vocab. I think that land is a special case. Most other things and actually most land these days, do require up keep. This upkeep is usually provided by the bottom level of society as those with enough resources to 'hoard' are usually not the ones cutting the grass. Most things have a built in decay. Gessell proposed a special system for land that isn't really in line with my views on property rights, but clearly something needs to be in place to avoid unproductive land accumulation. Property taxes work pretty well for this. One's actual ability to predict the value of other 'physical stores of value' well enough to actually use them as stores of value over long periods of time is probably over estimated. >Why not? Apart from this analogy making little sense, there is no reason to believe that one should not spend all one's money in a single 'binge' as opposed to rationing spending. Of course you can spend it all at one time, but generally, the thing you are spending it on did not pop into being at that instant, in the condition of maximum value. I guess my point is that if we are going to use money as a metaphor for exchanging goods and services, it should be a good metaphor. Goods and services degrade over time. Money should too. >Again, there is no particular reason to believe this. You seem to be asserting things as true with no reasoning to support your beliefs. Hey! I'm making the metaphors here. :) Yes, this is a though exercise. Play them out to their conclusions. Or better yet, run the model yourself: http://catallax.info/news/2015/4/19/a-published-model-of-hypercapitalism http://catallax.info/news/2015/4/19/a-published-model-of-hyp... >All the evidence I have ever seen indicates that human production, consumption and productivity are constantly increasing (though not monotonically), so you must provide a rationale for this assertion. I'm actually relying on this fact. Here is another way to think of things....If I produce a unit of work today...and I want to convert it to cash. How long into the future should that unit of work be good for? I don't know that there is a right answer. I think the line moves as society changes, but I think there is a line. If I stick that money in the bank, even at 0 interest, in an Ideal Money world with 0 inflation, and live off the state for the next 50 years, should I be able to take it out and buy the same amount of goods with it? Is that the society we want? We get to decide the society we want to live in...It is all about aligning incentives. ?This doesn't make any sense at all. If you were to say that fields being left fallow, machines being unused, or books left on the shelf was a waste of potential utility, you would likely be correct, but small pieces of paper and metal are not of much use to anyone, and not spending them simply increases the value of the money that is trading hands. Tell that to the socially awkward scientist who has a risky, but ultimately valid cure for cancer in his head, but can't get financing to save his(or your) life. Access to capital is a real problem to solve.