4 ms·

The really cool thing about money is that it makes an excellent points system. It's neat that you can trade green paper for physical things, but more importantl

by noahc 15y ago

The really cool thing about money is that it makes an excellent points system. It's neat that you can trade green paper for physical things, but more importantly money is a way to keep score to two decimal places. Often times when people talk about money they are talking about resource gathering. At some point the resource gathering turns off and the money becomes an easy proxy for points. So I'm not sure that creating another Lisp is less cool, but it can't be easily measured. What if IBM uses your Lisp for everything they do, how does that compare to another guys Lisp that has 6.5 million downloads. Who is cooler?

balsam 15y ago
One might define a meritocracy as one in which the coolness signalling aspect of money is no different from the resource gathering aspect. You also raise the interesting point about the granularity of money: if IBM makes more money than the Lisper for her Lisp, does that make IBM cooler? It could.
- noahc 15y ago
  I think you can see this in real world. Look at Linus or David of 37 Signals. They have created at least millions if not billions of dollars worth of value (uncollected). As a quick experiment with my girlfriend: Do you know who Linus is? => Uh, No. Do you know what Linux is? => Yeah, it's your system. Do you know what IBM is? => Yes, it's a computer company. It's pretty clear to me that outside of our nerd/geek bubble at the society level those that make more money are cooler.
  - kamaal 15y ago
    Talking about 'How much someone is rich' without talking about 'How someone became rich' is so plainly wrong. You have to work in order to make money. And to make a lot of money you need to work a lot, or at least harder. To do that you need to know how to use your time well. Understanding some meta aspects of work is very important. And sometimes studying nerd lives can give you how they manage those meta aspects which affect the actual aspects which make them money.
    - noahc 15y ago
      Everything you've said is true, except for your first sentence. What we're talking about here is money as a proxy for an actual score board. At this resolution the score board is all that matters because we can't see the game being played.
gbog 15y ago
Money is not a good point system, except if you think a big mac is more valuable than a book by Jane Austeen.
- count 15y ago
  One of those can keep a starving man alive.
  - gbog 15y ago
    That is a real benefit on the big mac side, but in my current value scale it can't compete with the hours of delight, the self-improvement, the aesthetic pleasure, the deep insights in human hearts, etc. I am rewarded with when reading, say, Pride and Prejudice.
    - icebraining 15y ago
      That's not inherent to the book, it's the value you put on the book. To my 8 year old brother, you can be sure the Big Mac will provide much more pleasure The value system you are pitting against money is completely subjective and therefore somewhat useless as a points system.
  - Fliko 15y ago
    A big mac would only keep the starving man alive for a few more hours. At least the man with the book could get some good entertainment before he starved to death.
- noahc 15y ago
  What does this even mean? I assume that you're talking about in a moral sense because of the value judgement you appear to have made. Of course, when I say 'good' I don't mean in the moral sense. Imagine you were to design a way for people to keep score and they had to use tangible things. What would make one tangle item better than another? Here's a quick list I came up with... 1. Easily transferable. Money fulfills this because it can be transferred electronically. The physical good need not even exist. Money when talking about it as a point system is strictly an abstract. Put another way it is a stored value that can later be redeemed for big macs or Jane Austeen books. 2. It must be difficult to acquire. Money you can't just print (Well you can, but it is mostly worthless). The difficulty makes it more of a way to keep score in the game of life. There needs to be a way to prevent someone from adding to their score arbitrarily. 3. You must be able to keep score at small enough intervals. Keeping score by buying big macs becomes unproductive when you get into the millions of dollar range. At the same time keeping score in the form of luxury cars becomes impossible in the thousands of dollar range. That's why I said money is good. Not in the moral sense that those who have more money are better people or some form of Prosperity theology. Just that money has many of the traits needed to provide a way to keep score.

by noahc 15y ago

balsam 15y ago

One might define a meritocracy as one in which the coolness signalling aspect of money is no different from the resource gathering aspect. You also raise the interesting point about the granularity of money: if IBM makes more money than the Lisper for her Lisp, does that make IBM cooler? It could.

noahc 15y ago
I think you can see this in real world. Look at Linus or David of 37 Signals. They have created at least millions if not billions of dollars worth of value (uncollected). As a quick experiment with my girlfriend: Do you know who Linus is? => Uh, No. Do you know what Linux is? => Yeah, it's your system. Do you know what IBM is? => Yes, it's a computer company. It's pretty clear to me that outside of our nerd/geek bubble at the society level those that make more money are cooler.
- kamaal 15y ago
  Talking about 'How much someone is rich' without talking about 'How someone became rich' is so plainly wrong. You have to work in order to make money. And to make a lot of money you need to work a lot, or at least harder. To do that you need to know how to use your time well. Understanding some meta aspects of work is very important. And sometimes studying nerd lives can give you how they manage those meta aspects which affect the actual aspects which make them money.
  - noahc 15y ago
    Everything you've said is true, except for your first sentence. What we're talking about here is money as a proxy for an actual score board. At this resolution the score board is all that matters because we can't see the game being played.

gbog 15y ago

Money is not a good point system, except if you think a big mac is more valuable than a book by Jane Austeen.

count 15y ago
One of those can keep a starving man alive.
- gbog 15y ago
  That is a real benefit on the big mac side, but in my current value scale it can't compete with the hours of delight, the self-improvement, the aesthetic pleasure, the deep insights in human hearts, etc. I am rewarded with when reading, say, Pride and Prejudice.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    That's not inherent to the book, it's the value you put on the book. To my 8 year old brother, you can be sure the Big Mac will provide much more pleasure The value system you are pitting against money is completely subjective and therefore somewhat useless as a points system.
- Fliko 15y ago
  A big mac would only keep the starving man alive for a few more hours. At least the man with the book could get some good entertainment before he starved to death.
noahc 15y ago
What does this even mean? I assume that you're talking about in a moral sense because of the value judgement you appear to have made. Of course, when I say 'good' I don't mean in the moral sense. Imagine you were to design a way for people to keep score and they had to use tangible things. What would make one tangle item better than another? Here's a quick list I came up with... 1. Easily transferable. Money fulfills this because it can be transferred electronically. The physical good need not even exist. Money when talking about it as a point system is strictly an abstract. Put another way it is a stored value that can later be redeemed for big macs or Jane Austeen books. 2. It must be difficult to acquire. Money you can't just print (Well you can, but it is mostly worthless). The difficulty makes it more of a way to keep score in the game of life. There needs to be a way to prevent someone from adding to their score arbitrarily. 3. You must be able to keep score at small enough intervals. Keeping score by buying big macs becomes unproductive when you get into the millions of dollar range. At the same time keeping score in the form of luxury cars becomes impossible in the thousands of dollar range. That's why I said money is good. Not in the moral sense that those who have more money are better people or some form of Prosperity theology. Just that money has many of the traits needed to provide a way to keep score.