pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 29 Oct \ parent \ on: Money Isn't a Measuring Stick, Idiots (TDE, Pete Earle) econ
totally beside the point. We're not arguing the merits of fixed-supply vs flexible supply monetary systems. Go read the article again, jfc.
We're arguing what MONEY PRICES do, and whether equating money to a "measuring stick" or a physical property makes sense. (conclusion: it doesn't.)
write
preview
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @327c19b153 29 Oct
  1. Money is not a physical measuring stick of “value.” (agree.).
  2. You're saying “hard money = fixed ruler” is a bad analogy; that money prices are messages (exchange ratios) that must move as reality moves. Correct?
  3. You are refusing to discuss how the design of the unit (fixed vs elastic) affects those messages.
  4. You're telling people to stop calling money a measuring stick. because prices move. done. fine. what im tryna say is yes, but the quality of that message depends on the unit’s rules. Elastic units add noise/bias; rule-bound units clean it up. why do you avoid answering the point about signal fidelity (Cantillon bias, unit risk, calculation noise). Do you claim unit elasticity adds information to relative prices (beyond Cantillon/path effects)? If yes, where exactly? If no, then we agree signal fidelity matters and unit design isn’t ‘beside the point.’
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 30 Oct
@remindme in 3 hours
This seems legit and illustrative for where the misunderstanding lies, so I'd like to address it properly.
(Out and about atm)
reply