4 ms·

I used the phrase “monetary asset” once to mean “an asset which behaves and is treated like money”, but it would have been less ambiguous for me to use the phra

by wyager 5y ago

I used the phrase “monetary asset” once to mean “an asset which behaves and is treated like money”, but it would have been less ambiguous for me to use the phrase “monetized asset”. > citation needed Give me a minute to find a copy of the Official Rules of Economic Epistemology. If you’d like to put forward any particular theory that assigns “intrinsic value” to objects I could address it specifically.

arcticbull 5y ago
> I used the phrase “monetary asset” once to mean “an asset which behaves and is treated like money”, but it would have been less ambiguous for me to use the phrase “monetized asset”. Real estate is a productive asset and gold is a commodity. I'm not sure in what way they "behave like money" - their prices float with respect to a currency and have roughly zero of the attributes of money [1] - but monetization just means to find ways to make money off an unproductive asset, rather than transmuting it into something that's basically money. > Give me a minute to find a copy of the Official Rules of Economic Epistemology. I'll wait. If you're going to accuse someone of a "dysfunctional mental economic model" it's best to have a case made. I'm referring to intrinsic value in the economic sense not in the epistemological sense. Economic intrinsic value is an independent mathematical derivation of the market value of an asset - based on its qualities and attributes - divorced from the price at which it trades. For instance, the intrinsic value of a SPAC is the cash on hand, and its extrinsic value is whatever its trading at on the hopes of an acquisition. [1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/education/economic-lowdown-podcast-series/episode-9-functions-of-money#:~:text=The%20characteristics%20of%20money%20are,%2C%20limited%20supply%2C%20and%20acceptability https://www.stlouisfed.org/education/economic-lowdown-podcas....
- wyager 5y ago
  > Economic intrinsic value is an independent mathematical derivation of the market value of an asset - based on its qualities and attributes - divorced from the price at which it trades This doesn’t exist except in the imagination. It has no causal bearing on any economic process except through the influence it has on the person imagining it. > their prices float with respect to a currency So does EUR with respect to USD > and have roughly zero of the attributes of money Scarcity, fungibility, liquidity, durability, portability - gold’s 5/5 and real estate is 4.5/5. What properties are you thinking about?
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > This doesn’t exist except in the imagination. It has no causal bearing on any economic process except through the influence it has on the person imagining it. No, it exists in math, with addition and subtraction. Like I said, a publicly traded bank account like a SPAC has an intrinsic value equal to its cash on hand. This is the economic definition of intrinsic value, and you're trying to once again substitute your epistemological definition. Same word, different meanings in different contexts, and it's disingenuous to try and substitute your definition as though it's the commonly accepted one in this context. > So does EUR with respect to USD This does not follow. Money isn't an asset, it's a currency, and a foreign exchange trade is a pair trade on the relative domestic purchasing power of the two. Currencies do not float with respect to other currencies because they are not priced in terms of each other. > Scarcity, fungibility, liquidity, durability, portability - gold’s 5/5 and real estate is 4.5/5. What properties are you thinking about? Ok let's talk about real estate. It's not fungible, each house is different. It's not liquid, in fact, sales take a substantial period of time. It's not necessarily durable, it decays without constant upkeep. It's totally not portable. And it's not broadly accepted as money. That's 0. Try bringing your deed to the Apple store to buy a MacBook. How is that 4.5 out of 5? Gold of course isn't broadly accepted either, so that's a critical one. Try bringing a gold brick to the Apple store and see if you can buy an iPhone. Yes it could be money, it was at some point, but we replaced it because it was bad at being money, and these days it definitely is not.
    - wyager 5y ago
      > No, it exists in math, with addition and subtraction. I’m sure you can imagine a formula. If you’d like to share a particular formula that works for determining the “intrinsic value” of any arbitrary asset I can explain why it’s wrong or meaningless. > This does not follow EUR literally floats wrt USD. There is no coherent way to disagree with this. > Currencies do not float with respect to other currencies because they are not priced in terms of each other. Yes they are, any time someone does an FX trade. > Ok let's talk about real estate. Typo, meant 3.5/5. Durable - yes, it persists better over arbitrary timescales than the dollar, especially raw land. Scarce - yes. Fungible - 0.5. Liquid - long settlement times don’t mean illiquid (although I probably should apply a penalty here) - yes. Portable - 0. I think you meant “1” since you didn’t disagree with scarcity. > Try bringing your deed to the Apple store to buy a MacBook… Try bringing a gold brick to the Apple store and see if you can buy an iPhone Try bringing EUR to a US Apple store. > we replaced it because it was bad at being money Do you really think that’s why Nixon suspended gold convertibility? That’s a… very charitable explanation

by wyager 5y ago

arcticbull 5y ago

> I used the phrase “monetary asset” once to mean “an asset which behaves and is treated like money”, but it would have been less ambiguous for me to use the phrase “monetized asset”. Real estate is a productive asset and gold is a commodity. I'm not sure in what way they "behave like money" - their prices float with respect to a currency and have roughly zero of the attributes of money [1] - but monetization just means to find ways to make money off an unproductive asset, rather than transmuting it into something that's basically money. > Give me a minute to find a copy of the Official Rules of Economic Epistemology. I'll wait. If you're going to accuse someone of a "dysfunctional mental economic model" it's best to have a case made. I'm referring to intrinsic value in the economic sense not in the epistemological sense. Economic intrinsic value is an independent mathematical derivation of the market value of an asset - based on its qualities and attributes - divorced from the price at which it trades. For instance, the intrinsic value of a SPAC is the cash on hand, and its extrinsic value is whatever its trading at on the hopes of an acquisition. [1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/education/economic-lowdown-podcast-series/episode-9-functions-of-money#:~:text=The%20characteristics%20of%20money%20are,%2C%20limited%20supply%2C%20and%20acceptability https://www.stlouisfed.org/education/economic-lowdown-podcas....

wyager 5y ago
> Economic intrinsic value is an independent mathematical derivation of the market value of an asset - based on its qualities and attributes - divorced from the price at which it trades This doesn’t exist except in the imagination. It has no causal bearing on any economic process except through the influence it has on the person imagining it. > their prices float with respect to a currency So does EUR with respect to USD > and have roughly zero of the attributes of money Scarcity, fungibility, liquidity, durability, portability - gold’s 5/5 and real estate is 4.5/5. What properties are you thinking about?
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > This doesn’t exist except in the imagination. It has no causal bearing on any economic process except through the influence it has on the person imagining it. No, it exists in math, with addition and subtraction. Like I said, a publicly traded bank account like a SPAC has an intrinsic value equal to its cash on hand. This is the economic definition of intrinsic value, and you're trying to once again substitute your epistemological definition. Same word, different meanings in different contexts, and it's disingenuous to try and substitute your definition as though it's the commonly accepted one in this context. > So does EUR with respect to USD This does not follow. Money isn't an asset, it's a currency, and a foreign exchange trade is a pair trade on the relative domestic purchasing power of the two. Currencies do not float with respect to other currencies because they are not priced in terms of each other. > Scarcity, fungibility, liquidity, durability, portability - gold’s 5/5 and real estate is 4.5/5. What properties are you thinking about? Ok let's talk about real estate. It's not fungible, each house is different. It's not liquid, in fact, sales take a substantial period of time. It's not necessarily durable, it decays without constant upkeep. It's totally not portable. And it's not broadly accepted as money. That's 0. Try bringing your deed to the Apple store to buy a MacBook. How is that 4.5 out of 5? Gold of course isn't broadly accepted either, so that's a critical one. Try bringing a gold brick to the Apple store and see if you can buy an iPhone. Yes it could be money, it was at some point, but we replaced it because it was bad at being money, and these days it definitely is not.
  - wyager 5y ago
    > No, it exists in math, with addition and subtraction. I’m sure you can imagine a formula. If you’d like to share a particular formula that works for determining the “intrinsic value” of any arbitrary asset I can explain why it’s wrong or meaningless. > This does not follow EUR literally floats wrt USD. There is no coherent way to disagree with this. > Currencies do not float with respect to other currencies because they are not priced in terms of each other. Yes they are, any time someone does an FX trade. > Ok let's talk about real estate. Typo, meant 3.5/5. Durable - yes, it persists better over arbitrary timescales than the dollar, especially raw land. Scarce - yes. Fungible - 0.5. Liquid - long settlement times don’t mean illiquid (although I probably should apply a penalty here) - yes. Portable - 0. I think you meant “1” since you didn’t disagree with scarcity. > Try bringing your deed to the Apple store to buy a MacBook… Try bringing a gold brick to the Apple store and see if you can buy an iPhone Try bringing EUR to a US Apple store. > we replaced it because it was bad at being money Do you really think that’s why Nixon suspended gold convertibility? That’s a… very charitable explanation