3 ms·

Prices are a heuristic people use for making choices more simply, because the number of ways an object can be defined is more numerous than the billions of atom

Prices are a heuristic people use for making choices more simply, because the number of ways an object can be defined is more numerous than the billions of atoms its made of. Further, for an item to be produced at scale and over time in the market, the profit must exceed the costs. Now, if you are able to see the value in something despite not having a firm monetization strategy, that just puts you in the same mental frame as the greatest entrepreneurs in the world. Jeff Bezos said something about how you should do what matters and find the profit later, it was written on the wall somewhere. SpaceX still might not be profitable (not sure), but the promise of 100kt of payload to LOE with recoverable lower and upper stages? Its worth the weight!

krisoft 3y ago
> Further, for an item to be produced at scale and over time in the market, the profit must exceed the costs. I think you meant to say revenue? > Now, if you are able to see the value in something despite not having a firm monetization strategy, that just puts you in the same mental frame as the greatest entrepreneurs in the world. It is also the same mental frame every starving artist shares too. They are able to see the value in what they do despite not having a firm monetization strategy.
- Geisterde 3y ago
  >I think you meant to say revenue? Yes, thanks. >It is also the same mental frame every starving artist shares too. They are able to see the value in what they do despite not having a firm monetization strategy. If you read the next sentence you can see I was gently incepting that along with the idea that successful people see value before they see the price they can attach to it. To even waste your time performing the economic calculation to determine the numbers you must first be motivated by something, there is a period of time however short between the idea and its technical analysis, the value you see and its monetization. Hey, that doesnt mean monetization isnt important, but it can be forestalled for important reasons like exploring the field or gaining experience, just as much as unimportant reasons, those, being subjective to the one paying the bills.
ganzuul 3y ago
To demonstrate a concept: You would in addition to paying the price also deduct against your CO2 footprint and it is illegal to purchase a bigger CO2 footprint. Then you have two values which are orthogonal to each other so less information is lost in the transaction. That is however still a system of debt and scarcity. A system of abundance would account for how many of the gifts you have given have been retained. Then add orthogonality to your retainment. That system of value does not destroy information that makes us happy. It assigns resources to where they can be refined to additional value.
- Geisterde 3y ago
  To your first point, that is a system of imposed value, as opposed to subjective value theory; taken again to the logical conclusion, we meet in the desert, you're thirsty and I have water, if you cant afford the carbon offset for the water should you die of thirst? Should I sell you a smaller quantity of water at the higher price? Or should I sell you the most amount of water you want at the lowest price I can offer? What of other types of pollution? Why wouldnt we be taxing the environmental damage of mercury or lead? These items are in fact heavily regulated today, and yet it was with the help of the local government and their power over utilities that flint michigan was poisoned with lead; this is something a private company could be more easily sued for, as opposed to the government with sovereign immunity. Why would we expect this system of weights and measures to not be captured like other systems of political power? Try to imagine the negative consequences of the corporate capture of power over the prices of all goods in the market, what effect that could have over relatively powerless people just trying to eat. To the second part, scarcity is not something that can be changed; no matter how much you produce of something it is still ultimately limited in its supply. This is a debt based system though, and it doesn't have to be; all dollars are created when a debt is issued, like a home loan or government debt, and these debts are issued at an interest rate, it is systemically guarenteed that there will always be more debt than dollars to pay it off. Taken this to its logical conclusion, you get the repo-men/corpus style society of everyone being a slave to bankers, its not markets that do this, its exogenous debt that can never be repaid without entering more debt. With a commodity money or a money with commodity backing, this is not possible; the banks cannot issue debt for a bar of gold they never had, and when their debts turn out to be malinvestments they cant be bailed out by a central authority, meaning they will only issue debts that they can reasonably expect to be paid off, rather than the predatory practices of today.

krisoft 3y ago

> Further, for an item to be produced at scale and over time in the market, the profit must exceed the costs. I think you meant to say revenue? > Now, if you are able to see the value in something despite not having a firm monetization strategy, that just puts you in the same mental frame as the greatest entrepreneurs in the world. It is also the same mental frame every starving artist shares too. They are able to see the value in what they do despite not having a firm monetization strategy.

Geisterde 3y ago
>I think you meant to say revenue? Yes, thanks. >It is also the same mental frame every starving artist shares too. They are able to see the value in what they do despite not having a firm monetization strategy. If you read the next sentence you can see I was gently incepting that along with the idea that successful people see value before they see the price they can attach to it. To even waste your time performing the economic calculation to determine the numbers you must first be motivated by something, there is a period of time however short between the idea and its technical analysis, the value you see and its monetization. Hey, that doesnt mean monetization isnt important, but it can be forestalled for important reasons like exploring the field or gaining experience, just as much as unimportant reasons, those, being subjective to the one paying the bills.

ganzuul 3y ago

To demonstrate a concept: You would in addition to paying the price also deduct against your CO2 footprint and it is illegal to purchase a bigger CO2 footprint. Then you have two values which are orthogonal to each other so less information is lost in the transaction. That is however still a system of debt and scarcity. A system of abundance would account for how many of the gifts you have given have been retained. Then add orthogonality to your retainment. That system of value does not destroy information that makes us happy. It assigns resources to where they can be refined to additional value.

Geisterde 3y ago
To your first point, that is a system of imposed value, as opposed to subjective value theory; taken again to the logical conclusion, we meet in the desert, you're thirsty and I have water, if you cant afford the carbon offset for the water should you die of thirst? Should I sell you a smaller quantity of water at the higher price? Or should I sell you the most amount of water you want at the lowest price I can offer? What of other types of pollution? Why wouldnt we be taxing the environmental damage of mercury or lead? These items are in fact heavily regulated today, and yet it was with the help of the local government and their power over utilities that flint michigan was poisoned with lead; this is something a private company could be more easily sued for, as opposed to the government with sovereign immunity. Why would we expect this system of weights and measures to not be captured like other systems of political power? Try to imagine the negative consequences of the corporate capture of power over the prices of all goods in the market, what effect that could have over relatively powerless people just trying to eat. To the second part, scarcity is not something that can be changed; no matter how much you produce of something it is still ultimately limited in its supply. This is a debt based system though, and it doesn't have to be; all dollars are created when a debt is issued, like a home loan or government debt, and these debts are issued at an interest rate, it is systemically guarenteed that there will always be more debt than dollars to pay it off. Taken this to its logical conclusion, you get the repo-men/corpus style society of everyone being a slave to bankers, its not markets that do this, its exogenous debt that can never be repaid without entering more debt. With a commodity money or a money with commodity backing, this is not possible; the banks cannot issue debt for a bar of gold they never had, and when their debts turn out to be malinvestments they cant be bailed out by a central authority, meaning they will only issue debts that they can reasonably expect to be paid off, rather than the predatory practices of today.