3 ms·
The "absolute silly notion" you (unfortunately) rudely deride is also correct. For more information, you might be interested in: (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04
by calibraxis 13y ago
The "absolute silly notion" you (unfortunately) rudely deride is also correct. For more information, you might be interested in: (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/technology/02darpa.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/technology/02darpa.html?_r...) and (http://books.google.com/books?id=n6PGe0TZuKMC&lpg=PA193&ots=nY9WKMS2-0&pg=PA193#v=onepage&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=n6PGe0TZuKMC&lpg=PA193&ots=...)
The statement, "Money is a token of value, so if you're creating value for someone, it shouldn't be too hard to get some money for it," is ideological and doesn't withstand scrutiny. For example, a mansion would represent enormous value for someone in abject poverty, but they may have no serious ability to compensate you. (This is why we may have bizarre outcomes like roughly as many homeless people as empty hotel rooms and apartments. The allocation system is profoundly irrational.)
- icebraining 13y agoI don't see how does your example invalidates mseebach's claim. It wasn't that the compensation was proportional to the value gained, just that if you can provide value, it shouldn't be hard to get money for it. Clearly mansion sellers can get money for the value they provide, even if that means selling to people who have less to gain from the mansions.