4 ms·

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

by gbog 15y ago

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.
- gbog 15y ago
  > in a moral sense No, not really. You said money is "an excellent points system". I inferred that if it was the case, the price of current products sold on the market should reflect well their inherent value, which I think it doesn't. Money is is too ductile and doesn't involve enough the "donor", a bit like "vote by SMS for your favorite star". The voting system itself is still not involving enough the person giving the vote. My favorite "point system" is "feet-voting": the best city is the place where people move to, the best country is the one that people want to go to live, raise their kids, etc. This evaluation was used during the Warring State period in China, and it induces the kings and feudal lords to enforce justice and proper retributions. If not, their administrate will move away. Trying to force them to stay by forbidding expatriation will push them away even stronger. And this voting-with-your-life thing is such a deep decision from the voters that we can trust them to ponder long-term consequences. Granted, this evaluation cannot apply to each and every case, but in the web services it has a clear equivalent in how many users stay on a site and use it.
  - rrrazdan 15y ago
    "Inherent value." How do you decide that? I mean how do you say that a Jane Austen novel is a more valuable than a Big Mac?
    - gbog 15y ago
      How I say it? Well, in plain English I say it. Do you mean How do I prove it? or How do I know it?
  - goblin89 15y ago
    > if it was the case, the price of current products sold on the market should reflect well their inherent value, which I think it doesn't. Money is good since it provides a reference point, a solid ground for measurement and comparison. Although often you need to take into account some non-obvious stuff when you compare two amounts of money (esp. prices), it still does work. For ‘inherent value’ each person would see their own price tag. And I'm sure my tag would reflect smaller amount for Jane Austen's book than yours. And feet-voting is good if you can judge on a large scale, which is not always applicable. Edit: by the way, most people would feet-vote for a big mac rather than a book (that is, if we were able to conduct a really unbiased experiment with random selection of people).
philwelch 15y ago
Actually, a given copy of a book shouldn't be worth much since it's not difficult to get another copy. The last surviving copy of an Austen novel would be worth millions.

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

by 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.

gbog 15y ago
> in a moral sense No, not really. You said money is "an excellent points system". I inferred that if it was the case, the price of current products sold on the market should reflect well their inherent value, which I think it doesn't. Money is is too ductile and doesn't involve enough the "donor", a bit like "vote by SMS for your favorite star". The voting system itself is still not involving enough the person giving the vote. My favorite "point system" is "feet-voting": the best city is the place where people move to, the best country is the one that people want to go to live, raise their kids, etc. This evaluation was used during the Warring State period in China, and it induces the kings and feudal lords to enforce justice and proper retributions. If not, their administrate will move away. Trying to force them to stay by forbidding expatriation will push them away even stronger. And this voting-with-your-life thing is such a deep decision from the voters that we can trust them to ponder long-term consequences. Granted, this evaluation cannot apply to each and every case, but in the web services it has a clear equivalent in how many users stay on a site and use it.
- rrrazdan 15y ago
  "Inherent value." How do you decide that? I mean how do you say that a Jane Austen novel is a more valuable than a Big Mac?
  - gbog 15y ago
    How I say it? Well, in plain English I say it. Do you mean How do I prove it? or How do I know it?
- goblin89 15y ago
  > if it was the case, the price of current products sold on the market should reflect well their inherent value, which I think it doesn't. Money is good since it provides a reference point, a solid ground for measurement and comparison. Although often you need to take into account some non-obvious stuff when you compare two amounts of money (esp. prices), it still does work. For ‘inherent value’ each person would see their own price tag. And I'm sure my tag would reflect smaller amount for Jane Austen's book than yours. And feet-voting is good if you can judge on a large scale, which is not always applicable. Edit: by the way, most people would feet-vote for a big mac rather than a book (that is, if we were able to conduct a really unbiased experiment with random selection of people).

philwelch 15y ago

Actually, a given copy of a book shouldn't be worth much since it's not difficult to get another copy. The last surviving copy of an Austen novel would be worth millions.