pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined 12h \ 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
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