tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post5209398137869774985..comments2024-03-28T06:53:23.473-04:00Comments on Moneyness: The Social Contrivance of Money... a bit contrived?JP Koninghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-41464044448802168262022-07-28T14:13:06.689-04:002022-07-28T14:13:06.689-04:00It surprises me that you use gold as an example of...It surprises me that you use gold as an example of something with intrinsic value. You can't directly eat it, drink it, burn it, use it for shelter, it is clearly worse than most other abundant metals to build tools.... So we end up with the jewelry utility, which is literally again a "beauty contest" (leaving apart that the existence of gold rings, bracelets, necklaces, etc could be explained for transport and security of that medium of exchange rather than for just "looking hadnsome")<br /><br />Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that for some reason you totally disregard the utility of exchange in itself. There are services provided by persons or entities that are valuable because they facilitate exchange (traders in general, a stock exchange, etc). And there are also things that are useful because they have the properties to provide that very same service of facilitating exchange (portable, divisible, durable, fungible, limited quantity, etc).<br /><br />Those things that provide that service are what Carl Menger meant with his concept of commodity: A commodity is a commodity because the only purpose of the owner is to sell the thing. So being useful for other purpose different than selling it is not within the essence of the concept of commodity (as he defines it in his work). <br /><br />I am fully aware that definition is anachronic nowadays, we use indeed the opposite meaning, but I think is worth the effort to strictly read Menger's work using that definition to fully understand his monetary theory, which I think is extremely powerful to explain the utility of media of exchange in general (which he calls commodities).mpolaviejahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07019090624748286662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-53030071538529349542020-07-01T06:22:57.010-04:002020-07-01T06:22:57.010-04:00Money is simply a CONTRIVANCE and does NOT properl...Money is simply a CONTRIVANCE and does NOT properly allocate resources. I could go further into this but I wi briefly say WHY do you think most of your clothing is made in China? It's not because China has ALL the resources, it is because companies pay the employees shit money and then ship your shit over to you! Please grow a brain and realize money is not the thing you think it is. It is simply a means of control and ensuring the rich stay rich. I understand keeping your job because you have to live. But at least acknowledge the fact that money is BULLSHIT. Please?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-91962030682513876272012-12-05T03:23:56.994-05:002012-12-05T03:23:56.994-05:00Maybe not entirely coincidental I published this, ...Maybe not entirely coincidental I published this, about Robert Lucas his definition of money (which is based upon the Samuelson idea), around the same time: <br /><br />http://rwer.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/robert-lucas-and-his-non-definition-of-non-money/<br /><br />Merijn KnibbeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-71203986136397405062012-10-30T15:39:21.152-04:002012-10-30T15:39:21.152-04:00Economics isn't physics.
Economic models are ...Economics isn't physics.<br /><br />Economic models are exactly like science fiction. Both create an artificial world with a few simplified assumptions, populate that world, then push the characters to a climax to see what happens. Orwell's 1984 is a model in which there is no capacity for individual actions, the overlapping generations model is a science fiction story in which there are no storable goods.<br /><br />One hopes that the alternative realities we create, either through SF or economics, might teach us a bit about our much more complex world.JP Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-49486692534679289052012-10-30T15:18:16.677-04:002012-10-30T15:18:16.677-04:00If a physicist wrote a thesis discussing a hypothe...If a physicist wrote a thesis discussing a hypothetical world where the law of gravity didn't exist, would the other members of the physics community discuss it, as if it had any relevance to the world we actually live in? <br /><br />Or would it be considered science fiction?<br /><br />So please tell me what point there is with this discussion?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com