3 ms·
Agreed. Marx called from 1844; he wants his "Labor Theory of Value" back. Simply because something is rare, doesn't mean it is valuable.
by pjkundert 16y ago
Agreed. Marx called from 1844; he wants his "Labor Theory of Value" back.
Simply because something is rare, doesn't mean it is valuable.
- eru 16y agoThough if it's rare, it can stay valuable, once it becomes so.
- hugh3 16y agoAnd how many times in history has this happened? Maybe once, if you want to count precious metals and stones... though these have a certain aesthetic appeal, and in any case have been considered valuable for all of recorded history. Every other valuable asset in the world is either useful or backed by a recognised government.
- eru 16y agoDoesn't need to be a government. Just a trusted party that provides conversion into other assets.
- hugh3 16y agoIn which case you have a currency backed by the underlying assets of the trusted party. A "one free donut" voucher from Krispy Kreme is almost as good as owning a donut, since I'm fairly confident that they'll be able to produce the donut upon demand. Whether "donut vouchers" deserve to be called an asset separate from "donuts", however, is pretty debatable -- the value of one is clearly tied to the value of the other. This is, of course, nothing like Bitcoin, which isn't backed by any actual assets of any trusted party. In fact, it is entirely incompatible with the massive inflation which is Bitcoin's most appealing feature for its early adopters.