pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 17 replies \ @Undisciplined 29 Oct \ parent \ on: What bitcoin taught me: Value is not subjective econ
Ok, I didn't get what you meant by introducing a third party.
I don't think it inherently reduces value, but would do so if we held other things constant because it's another participant who needs to be trusted and another failure point.
There could be third parties who improve the system. Markets have very extended supply chains with many intermediaries, after all.
Third parties have to reduce the cost of one of the other dimensions, it's objectively better if costs can be reduced without introducing third-parties, because they are definitionally less efficient if all other dimensions are not positively impacted.
In other words in boxing and gymnastics you have judges. In field sports you have referees. But great lengths are gone to in order to minimise their interference in the game, to reduce their influence on the outcome. If the sports could be conducted without them entirely they would be.
reply
Sports feels like a refutation of your point, though.
The introduction of third party referees between the two teams improves the product. They didn't "objectively devalue the thing intrinsically".
I think what you're trying to get at is that we can deduce that certain conditions will reduce the value of a product to people. Such deductions, in no way refute subjective value theory, though. In fact, most of those deductions have been done in the subjective value framework.
reply
I think there's a reason bitcoin wasn't invented by an economist.
reply
There's also a reason it was invented by people who believed in subjective value theory
reply
No it wasn't, where is the evidence for that?
At most they may have tacitly accepted the dominant modern paradigms.
reply
where is the evidence for that?
For one, it's implied by your assertion that no one agrees with you on this.
For two, they were clearly well versed in the economics of mechanism design.
Also, you don't know that bitcoin wasn't invented by an economist. It seems like you're just more interested in having a disagreement than you are in coming to an understanding.
reply
For one, that's not evidence, only an economist could call it that.
I do know that the vast majority of people who contributed to Bitcoin's emergence from the early 80s were not economists. Nick Szabo, for one, was and is completely ignored in economics. Economics is mostly a scam, and the fundamental ideas they propagate, like revealed preferences, are a scourge used to justify all kinds of abhorrent policies and systems.
Bitcoin exists, as in value systems can be architected and designed, because value is not subjective. If value were fundamentally subjective then designing such a system would have been impossible, none of the subjective incentives could have aggregated into a single stable token system.
I'm not agreeing for the joy of being disagreeable, I'm arguing because you're wrong.
reply
"What is subjective is only the judgment of an individual as to the degree to which something meets these 4 criteria, and their personal priorities if trade offs are required."
Unless you recant that statement, what you're putting forward is a version of subjective value theory, as I told you at the outset. Not acknowledging that is just being disagreeable for the sake of it.
You may think economics is BS and economists are scammers, but Subjective Value Theory is part of our field and I'm telling you how we use the term subjective value. As kepford tried to tell you earlier, what you're doing is insisting on using words differently than how others use them to create the illusion of disagreement.
Maybe entertain the idea that people who have spent centuries thinking this stuff through are prepared for whatever notion just recently popped into your head.
I spelled it out, it's a trade off. The third party don't improve the sport unless they reduce the cost of verification, increase the challenge, or make it more universal.
Take another example of a trade off: you can reduce the challenge, the difficulty of the goal, if it makes the game more inclusive. But if reducing the challenge doesn't effect any of the other dimensions then it's objectively worse. Same with a third-party, if introduced the game isn't better because there is a third-party, but because one or more of the other dimensions have been improved upon.
The specific rules of the sport are derivative of these principles, which have to be juggled.
Politics is the process of determining which principle takes priority in any given context, and the priorities of individuals for one or more of the principles is what determines their position on the political spectrum.
Left-libertarian = care + independence
Right-authoritarian = challenge + verification
reply