5 ms·

Money is a tool of social organization that lacks instrinsic value. Any time we as a society refuse to do something worthwhile for the sole reason that it would

by cygx 7y ago

Money is a tool of social organization that lacks instrinsic value. Any time we as a society refuse to do something worthwhile for the sole reason that it would cost too much, that's a capitulation to human stupidity and/or greed.

ehaliewicz2 7y ago
It's not so much about money, the implication is that making solar panels costs some amount of resources that according to the parent, could possibly be spent in better ways. The money just represents, indirectly, the amount of resources.
- cygx 7y ago
  The question is, what's the limiting factor: Availability of manpower, natural resources, etc, or 'merely' the money to pay for them? The latter is an artificial constraint. Take nuclear fusion as an example: Supposedly, this is a case where the projected investments necessary to go from theory to practice just haven't been made. With return of investment only anticipated in the far-off future, it was decided that the money could be spent in better ways.
  - ehaliewicz2 7y ago
    Obviously money again is only representing some value or resource. You have to compensate workers or else they won't do any work (unless you plan on enslaving them, or have the government provide for all their needs).
sonnyblarney 7y ago
The value of money is not artificial, it's valued through a measurement of it's availability vis-a-vis other resources and opportunities. Surely countries can invest more if those projects are 'more value creating than other investments' and if it's rational, but the notion that countries shouldn't be afraid of debt either is pragmatically no helpful. All of us are just a few irresponsible financial decisions away from being Greece, Venezuela, Weimar etc.. Stable fiat currencies are a precarious thing, which why we are so cold and 'small c' conservative about it. As for Germany's problems, it has to do with how we measure value, institutional legacy, and obviously unwillingness to consider Nuclear. Merkel was never really a pragmatist in the sense we would understand it - she was a political pragmatist, meaning really just 'populist' but more of the centrist type: I believe her Nuclear decision was mostly political.
- cygx 7y ago
  Of course it's artificial. However, that doesn't mean it's arbitrary, or useless, or can be ignored at will given the current system of socio-economic organization. You're absolutely right that in the world we live in, policy makers have to be careful about financial decisions, or suffer the consequences. But I believe people should be reminded from time to time that our world is pretty far from the best possible one: There's no particularly good reason that a child has to die from undernutrition every couple of minutes, that fusion research stagnated due to lack of funding, that people go bankrupt to pay for healthcare, etc. As a species, we're just too stupid and greedy to do any better...

by cygx 7y ago

ehaliewicz2 7y ago

It's not so much about money, the implication is that making solar panels costs some amount of resources that according to the parent, could possibly be spent in better ways. The money just represents, indirectly, the amount of resources.

cygx 7y ago
The question is, what's the limiting factor: Availability of manpower, natural resources, etc, or 'merely' the money to pay for them? The latter is an artificial constraint. Take nuclear fusion as an example: Supposedly, this is a case where the projected investments necessary to go from theory to practice just haven't been made. With return of investment only anticipated in the far-off future, it was decided that the money could be spent in better ways.
- ehaliewicz2 7y ago
  Obviously money again is only representing some value or resource. You have to compensate workers or else they won't do any work (unless you plan on enslaving them, or have the government provide for all their needs).

sonnyblarney 7y ago

The value of money is not artificial, it's valued through a measurement of it's availability vis-a-vis other resources and opportunities. Surely countries can invest more if those projects are 'more value creating than other investments' and if it's rational, but the notion that countries shouldn't be afraid of debt either is pragmatically no helpful. All of us are just a few irresponsible financial decisions away from being Greece, Venezuela, Weimar etc.. Stable fiat currencies are a precarious thing, which why we are so cold and 'small c' conservative about it. As for Germany's problems, it has to do with how we measure value, institutional legacy, and obviously unwillingness to consider Nuclear. Merkel was never really a pragmatist in the sense we would understand it - she was a political pragmatist, meaning really just 'populist' but more of the centrist type: I believe her Nuclear decision was mostly political.

cygx 7y ago
Of course it's artificial. However, that doesn't mean it's arbitrary, or useless, or can be ignored at will given the current system of socio-economic organization. You're absolutely right that in the world we live in, policy makers have to be careful about financial decisions, or suffer the consequences. But I believe people should be reminded from time to time that our world is pretty far from the best possible one: There's no particularly good reason that a child has to die from undernutrition every couple of minutes, that fusion research stagnated due to lack of funding, that people go bankrupt to pay for healthcare, etc. As a species, we're just too stupid and greedy to do any better...