4 ms·

Labor is the principal value of a currency. I'm guessing you are a libertarian. Maybe you should learn about how commerce, financial instruments, and debt work

Labor is the principal value of a currency. I'm guessing you are a libertarian. Maybe you should learn about how commerce, financial instruments, and debt work before saying money has no intrinsic value. Otherwise, if money has no intrinsic value then why work for it? Maybe we should go be communists. As Labor is the principal value of currency, so is debt the obligations of its members. When you get a loan you are not just getting money for interest over time, a group of loans can be packaged into bonds and the bonds can be sold by the lender as a lien against the debt. You get money, the bank gets interest and the bond holders get a percentage. Tell me, where can I get a loan for bitcoin from a FDIC lender? Someone I know who will be honest and not Gox me. Is spent compute the same as labor? Can a thing that computes a thing that stores a thing that hashes a thing that shows that a transaction for a thing happens have a value greater than the things I do for my career? Because to me blockchain is a waste of energy and Energy used for Compute, aka Entropy, has no value.

cyphar 8y ago
I would argue (though this is getting more philosophical) that time is what has intrinsic value (or rather, time saved), since we all have a limited amount of time. Labour is how time gets saved -- one person spends their time doing something so that another person doesn't need to spend their time on it, and thus the person spending the time gets some money as a token for the time they spent. (But I agree with your point.)
- stillbourne 8y ago
  I disagree, if time were the intrinsic value then all workers would receive the same disbursement amounts. As Labor also requires Skill and Proficiency those combine to adjust the value of the Labor.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    People with more skill and proficiency don't need to sacrifice as much of their time to provide the basic sustenance they need to live. They can sacrifice a bit more of their time to earn a bit more and improve their standard of living though. The most skilled have the leisure to work when they want and for who they want, because those skills are in high demand and people are willing to pay more for them. Time is the sacrifice. If everybody could have a high standard of living and not work, most would chose not to work and spend that time with their families instead. Obviously, there are some who find meaning or purpose in a lifestyle of work, and chose to do so even if they don't need the compensation which comes out of it. Each to his own.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    Skill and proficiency took the worker time to attain through training and experience, and more skilled workers can save more time (either now through efficiency, or in the future by doing a better job).
    - stillbourne 8y ago
      That is not correct. A person who flips burgers and a person who is going to school to learn a trade are both using an equal amount of time. The latter however expended more effort to obtain a skill set and effort and labor are equivalent. A 40 year old who works 12 hour shifts to make ends meet can use more time than an individual who expended effort to train a skill to proficiency and enter a labor market. Additionally, we can have 2 individuals who both spent time training a skill set. One can end up more proficient than the other despite time or effort spent as despite the old adage not everyone is created equal. Some are prodigiously gifted. One person may struggle through his tutelage while the other breezes through. In the end they both put in the same time, 4yrs, do they get paid the same because they put in the same time? On the contrary, I went to school with several people that made it through the program for CS and got the paper, but are working in hospitality, warehouses, or sheet metal. They put in equal time do they all get paid equally?
sparkie 8y ago
Labor is a sacrifice of ones time, and one expects to receive compensation for that sacrifice. The medium of compensation could be anything, and is certainly not limited to regional monopoly currencies. The key distinction between the currency and Bitcoin is the government's use of force to mandate that people accept the currency as a unit of payment for services (and use it to pay taxes). There is no intrinsic value. After all, it is merely paper or digital numbers. It's amusing that anti-bitcoiners will use the government force argument to try and push people away from bitcoin. "Bitcoin is no good because it is not backed by government force." When people hear that, they say. "Oh my god, really? How can I get some?"
- stillbourne 8y ago
  Cool dude, you've invented Anarcho-capitalism. Go you. Let's also privatize everything like roads and education and police and prisons and all of the things because taxes are theft and if I plug my ears and scream loud enough then they can't educate me on everything that went wrong in the Gilded Age.
  - vitaliksghost 8y ago
    You have zero clues and speak for others. Go away.
    - erulabs 8y ago
      It seems like you're new to HN so you might want to check out the community guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Unlike other news aggregation sites, people try fairly hard here to let the sort of accusational, off-topic screed you're replying to either a) get a thoughtful reply or b) fade away into oblivion, instead of boiling over.
- XorNot 8y ago
  If Bitcoin is not backed by government force, then why is it worth anything? Because no one can be compelled to accept Bitcoin to extinguish my debts to them (i.e. by the courts) and I can't pay my taxes in Bitcoin to my local government (no, "just-in-time currency exchange doesn't count). So given these problems, what is the exchange rate of Bitcoin into anything else supposed to be? Given, again, that eventually, everyone transacting in Bitcoin needs to transact out of Bitcoin in order to meet local obligations like taxes, or just to acquire goods someone actually wants to accept payment in. Bitcoin is a lot like gold, in that people might find some cosmetic and novelty value in it which gives it more then 0 value. But unlike gold, it consumes a lot of real world resources (electricity, structured silicon) in order to continue existing.
seibelj 8y ago
You are speaking as if your philosophical viewpoints are settled facts. Your opinions on the nature of money are not facts and cannot be proven. We can propose theories about why something has value, such as a currency, but ultimately it comes down to philosophy when you are trying to understand why dollars / gold / bitcoin is worth something. At the end of the day, something has value because two people agree it does. One painting is worth $100million and another $100 because two people agree that’s what it’s worth. Why two people agree something has value is the matter of endless debate. But I assure everyone reading that the commenter I am responding to is not certain to the answer, and actually no one really knows. This is philosophy, we can all have opinions.
- lostmsu 8y ago
  I support you point in general, but I am curious, that you say "painting is worth X because two people agree". What if they disagree? I'd be interested to read some thoughts on that. Even better - proper theories.
  - ric2b 8y ago
    I think it goes even further than what the previous comment said. The value of the painting is different for everyone and even for the same person it will change in different circumstances (value of a cup of water at home or in the desert). When a transaction happens the two people very probably don't agree on the value. Rather, the seller values the painting at "less or equal" of the strike price and the buyer values it at "equal or more". The transaction happens if those two regions overlap somewhat.
- stillbourne 8y ago
  >At the end of the day, something has value because two people agree it does. I guess commerce should never exceed two people. Got it. I'll go tell Amazon they need to close shop.
  - anm89 8y ago
    This is idiotic. He clearly did not say that.
erulabs 8y ago
> Otherwise, if money has no intrinsic value then why work for it? Because it has value to me, and to many other humans who I know and trust, which gives it _extrinsic_ or subjective value. To be snarky: Maybe you should learn to think through others ideas, or read their suggested reading, before accusing them of ignorance.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
shrimpx 8y ago
From your perspective you can compare crypto to gold as a store of value. If you hold a bar of gold in your safe, does it have any "intrinsic value?" Similarly to Bitcoin, gold is expensive to mine. But moving on, Bitcoin is not just a store of value. It's electronically transmittable without middle men. You can think of it as gold you can teleport across the globe. Lots of people would find this to be "intrinsic value."

cyphar 8y ago

I would argue (though this is getting more philosophical) that time is what has intrinsic value (or rather, time saved), since we all have a limited amount of time. Labour is how time gets saved -- one person spends their time doing something so that another person doesn't need to spend their time on it, and thus the person spending the time gets some money as a token for the time they spent. (But I agree with your point.)

stillbourne 8y ago
I disagree, if time were the intrinsic value then all workers would receive the same disbursement amounts. As Labor also requires Skill and Proficiency those combine to adjust the value of the Labor.
- sparkie 8y ago
  People with more skill and proficiency don't need to sacrifice as much of their time to provide the basic sustenance they need to live. They can sacrifice a bit more of their time to earn a bit more and improve their standard of living though. The most skilled have the leisure to work when they want and for who they want, because those skills are in high demand and people are willing to pay more for them. Time is the sacrifice. If everybody could have a high standard of living and not work, most would chose not to work and spend that time with their families instead. Obviously, there are some who find meaning or purpose in a lifestyle of work, and chose to do so even if they don't need the compensation which comes out of it. Each to his own.
- cyphar 8y ago
  Skill and proficiency took the worker time to attain through training and experience, and more skilled workers can save more time (either now through efficiency, or in the future by doing a better job).
  - stillbourne 8y ago
    That is not correct. A person who flips burgers and a person who is going to school to learn a trade are both using an equal amount of time. The latter however expended more effort to obtain a skill set and effort and labor are equivalent. A 40 year old who works 12 hour shifts to make ends meet can use more time than an individual who expended effort to train a skill to proficiency and enter a labor market. Additionally, we can have 2 individuals who both spent time training a skill set. One can end up more proficient than the other despite time or effort spent as despite the old adage not everyone is created equal. Some are prodigiously gifted. One person may struggle through his tutelage while the other breezes through. In the end they both put in the same time, 4yrs, do they get paid the same because they put in the same time? On the contrary, I went to school with several people that made it through the program for CS and got the paper, but are working in hospitality, warehouses, or sheet metal. They put in equal time do they all get paid equally?

sparkie 8y ago

Labor is a sacrifice of ones time, and one expects to receive compensation for that sacrifice. The medium of compensation could be anything, and is certainly not limited to regional monopoly currencies. The key distinction between the currency and Bitcoin is the government's use of force to mandate that people accept the currency as a unit of payment for services (and use it to pay taxes). There is no intrinsic value. After all, it is merely paper or digital numbers. It's amusing that anti-bitcoiners will use the government force argument to try and push people away from bitcoin. "Bitcoin is no good because it is not backed by government force." When people hear that, they say. "Oh my god, really? How can I get some?"

stillbourne 8y ago
Cool dude, you've invented Anarcho-capitalism. Go you. Let's also privatize everything like roads and education and police and prisons and all of the things because taxes are theft and if I plug my ears and scream loud enough then they can't educate me on everything that went wrong in the Gilded Age.
- vitaliksghost 8y ago
  You have zero clues and speak for others. Go away.
  - erulabs 8y ago
    It seems like you're new to HN so you might want to check out the community guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Unlike other news aggregation sites, people try fairly hard here to let the sort of accusational, off-topic screed you're replying to either a) get a thoughtful reply or b) fade away into oblivion, instead of boiling over.
XorNot 8y ago
If Bitcoin is not backed by government force, then why is it worth anything? Because no one can be compelled to accept Bitcoin to extinguish my debts to them (i.e. by the courts) and I can't pay my taxes in Bitcoin to my local government (no, "just-in-time currency exchange doesn't count). So given these problems, what is the exchange rate of Bitcoin into anything else supposed to be? Given, again, that eventually, everyone transacting in Bitcoin needs to transact out of Bitcoin in order to meet local obligations like taxes, or just to acquire goods someone actually wants to accept payment in. Bitcoin is a lot like gold, in that people might find some cosmetic and novelty value in it which gives it more then 0 value. But unlike gold, it consumes a lot of real world resources (electricity, structured silicon) in order to continue existing.

seibelj 8y ago

You are speaking as if your philosophical viewpoints are settled facts. Your opinions on the nature of money are not facts and cannot be proven. We can propose theories about why something has value, such as a currency, but ultimately it comes down to philosophy when you are trying to understand why dollars / gold / bitcoin is worth something. At the end of the day, something has value because two people agree it does. One painting is worth $100million and another $100 because two people agree that’s what it’s worth. Why two people agree something has value is the matter of endless debate. But I assure everyone reading that the commenter I am responding to is not certain to the answer, and actually no one really knows. This is philosophy, we can all have opinions.

lostmsu 8y ago
I support you point in general, but I am curious, that you say "painting is worth X because two people agree". What if they disagree? I'd be interested to read some thoughts on that. Even better - proper theories.
- ric2b 8y ago
  I think it goes even further than what the previous comment said. The value of the painting is different for everyone and even for the same person it will change in different circumstances (value of a cup of water at home or in the desert). When a transaction happens the two people very probably don't agree on the value. Rather, the seller values the painting at "less or equal" of the strike price and the buyer values it at "equal or more". The transaction happens if those two regions overlap somewhat.
stillbourne 8y ago
>At the end of the day, something has value because two people agree it does. I guess commerce should never exceed two people. Got it. I'll go tell Amazon they need to close shop.
- anm89 8y ago
  This is idiotic. He clearly did not say that.

erulabs 8y ago

> Otherwise, if money has no intrinsic value then why work for it? Because it has value to me, and to many other humans who I know and trust, which gives it _extrinsic_ or subjective value. To be snarky: Maybe you should learn to think through others ideas, or read their suggested reading, before accusing them of ignorance.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

shrimpx 8y ago

From your perspective you can compare crypto to gold as a store of value. If you hold a bar of gold in your safe, does it have any "intrinsic value?" Similarly to Bitcoin, gold is expensive to mine. But moving on, Bitcoin is not just a store of value. It's electronically transmittable without middle men. You can think of it as gold you can teleport across the globe. Lots of people would find this to be "intrinsic value."