3 ms·

And we see again, proven by historical records in the article, that the Commodity theory of money is wrong. Yet, their evangelists don’t stop to spread the lie

And we see again, proven by historical records in the article, that the Commodity theory of money is wrong. Yet, their evangelists don’t stop to spread the lie that scarcity and “intrinsic value” would be the root for money’s value. Just another trap they span out to sell you their toxic ideology of austerity and raise the price of the worthless golden commodity they are sitting on.

solotronics 6y ago
As opposed to what exactly? We currently live in a world of finite resources. Eventually the laws of thermodynamics will apply as we live in a physical system. Say you had a note that corresponded to having a hamburger. As long as the note actually is convertible for a hamburger it has basically a fixed value and is therefore useful. It might even be more valuable in the future if a burger costs more $. What happens when there are more notes than hamburgers available? Nothing bad might happen for a while. What about if there are all of a sudden 1000 hamburger notes for every physical hamburger? What if at a certain time more people want a hamburger than there is supply for? The hamburger note devalues and becomes worth less than an actual hamburger.
Matticus_Rex 6y ago
Monetary theorists don't really use the concept of "intrinsic value." All value is imputed. If something intrinsically has a use, then as long as people value it for that use, the thing will have some imputed value as a basis for trade, which makes it easier for something to go into circulation as a commodity traded for its own sake (and potentially at some point a medium of exchange). Despite examples of other methods of MOE arising, we do also know it can happen that way. Even Graeber's Debt thesis is compatible with the idea that the media chosen to mark debts seem to have been things there was a use for and which were circulating for that use.
jl2718 6y ago
I think there may be some valid points behind this invective, but you’re not making them. Bitcoin was a compromise because it seemed like the only viable alternative to a rapidly unraveling monetary system. My guess is that your grievances are due there, and not to Bitcoin, which simply stands by and accrues value through systemic failure. The idealists wanted something you might find much more amenable, and yes, capitulation has made many of them rich, but only in worthless paper and bits. Maybe a car. Maybe a yacht. All worthless. We still don’t have a functional economy. You still can’t buy peace and freedom with Bitcoin.

solotronics 6y ago

As opposed to what exactly? We currently live in a world of finite resources. Eventually the laws of thermodynamics will apply as we live in a physical system. Say you had a note that corresponded to having a hamburger. As long as the note actually is convertible for a hamburger it has basically a fixed value and is therefore useful. It might even be more valuable in the future if a burger costs more $. What happens when there are more notes than hamburgers available? Nothing bad might happen for a while. What about if there are all of a sudden 1000 hamburger notes for every physical hamburger? What if at a certain time more people want a hamburger than there is supply for? The hamburger note devalues and becomes worth less than an actual hamburger.

Matticus_Rex 6y ago

Monetary theorists don't really use the concept of "intrinsic value." All value is imputed. If something intrinsically has a use, then as long as people value it for that use, the thing will have some imputed value as a basis for trade, which makes it easier for something to go into circulation as a commodity traded for its own sake (and potentially at some point a medium of exchange). Despite examples of other methods of MOE arising, we do also know it can happen that way. Even Graeber's Debt thesis is compatible with the idea that the media chosen to mark debts seem to have been things there was a use for and which were circulating for that use.

jl2718 6y ago

I think there may be some valid points behind this invective, but you’re not making them. Bitcoin was a compromise because it seemed like the only viable alternative to a rapidly unraveling monetary system. My guess is that your grievances are due there, and not to Bitcoin, which simply stands by and accrues value through systemic failure. The idealists wanted something you might find much more amenable, and yes, capitulation has made many of them rich, but only in worthless paper and bits. Maybe a car. Maybe a yacht. All worthless. We still don’t have a functional economy. You still can’t buy peace and freedom with Bitcoin.