3 ms·
I think your natural argument rests on the idea that money is somehow a time-independent measure of "effort" but I don't know if that really makes sense.
by munificent 7y ago
I think your natural argument rests on the idea that money is somehow a time-independent measure of "effort" but I don't know if that really makes sense.
- mindslight 7y agoI agree that is part of my argument. People certainly treat money as if it should be a time-independent measure of effort. Is there another objective metric that you can imagine money representing? I do not think it makes sense to insist that money can only ever be subjective based on the possibility that transients can occur - eg a factory burning down does cause natural price inflation, but this is an exception rather than the rule.
- munificent 7y agoI don't think have the luxury of imagining a metric that we wish money to represent any more than we can say that "the number of rats in New York" means anything in any abstract sense. The value of money is an emergent property of what people do with it and if its numeric measure fails to track our selected "objective metric", it's the fault of our metric, not money itself.
- mindslight 7y agoObjective measures are necessary to independently judge the actions of the people in charge of the money supply. To write off objective standards is to hand them an enormous amount of unchecked power, power which will invariably be abused for their gain.
- Supermancho 7y agoThat is both how it is viewed by the 90% and how it is treated by the entire system. This is the source of "Time is money".