There is an objective theory of value and it has not been abandoned also there is a reason it is called a theory and not a law. http://mises.org/daily/4907/"The actual process through which subjective valuations lead to objective market prices is complicated. The average person doesn't need to understand it. However, everyone should be aware of the basic principles of modern value theory, as sketched in this article. Precisely because value is subjective, voluntary trades are win-win situations. At the same time, market prices are objective measures of wealth, and they allow firms to calculate whether they are using resources efficiently or not." The theory you are referring to here is correctly called subjective theory of value. And it is accepted by most mainstream schools of economics. Actually, I meant exactly this theory when I wrote that there is no objective value in modern economics... You obviously didnt read the article. Value is subjective to the individual... but objective to the market. What you (they) name here as objective value is called price... I intentionally asked you what you meant by objective value. Your answer was that objective value is "the unit of measure is objectively valuable. Like gold, or joules of work"... |
|
|
|
I mean that the unit of measure is objectively valuable. Like gold, or joules of work.
There is no place for objective value in modern economics in the sense you mean here. The theories claiming otherwise (for example, labor theory of value or intrinsic theory of value) have been abandoned by most economists for not being able to correctly describe real life economic phenomena... There is an objective theory of value and it has not been abandoned also there is a reason it is called a theory and not a law. http://mises.org/daily/4907/"The actual process through which subjective valuations lead to objective market prices is complicated. The average person doesn't need to understand it. However, everyone should be aware of the basic principles of modern value theory, as sketched in this article. Precisely because value is subjective, voluntary trades are win-win situations. At the same time, market prices are objective measures of wealth, and they allow firms to calculate whether they are using resources efficiently or not." The theory you are referring to here is correctly called subjective theory of value. And nowadays it is accepted by most mainstream schools of economics. Actually, I meant exactly this theory when I wrote in reply to your post that there is no objective value in modern economics... |
|
|
|
разметка под закладку фундамента
Так вроде ж договорились, что на обратной стороне Луны будут строить... Я что-то упустил? |
|
|
|
I'm running out of ideas on how to help you understand this fundamental difference. If people hate you enough to not want to interact with you, you have no right to force yourself on them. That's just how society works; you play by the rules or you get shut out.
I have already explained everything in one of my earlier posts. Also, you said it yourself that if my beliefs clash with other people's, either they or I must adjust, so there is still no room for voluntary change if that was your point. When you have to adjust to something against your will, this is coercion under any name... |
|
|
|
I mean that the unit of measure is objectively valuable. Like gold, or joules of work.
There is no place for objective value in modern economics in the sense you mean here. The theories claiming otherwise (for example, labor theory of value or intrinsic theory of value) have been abandoned by most economists for not being able to correctly describe real life economic phenomena... |
|
|
|
Impaler was absolutely wrong about security of Bitcoin adding nothing to its strength as a store of value for rather evident reasons which I have shown (it works the same way as taxes and legalization of money do), but this doesn't make your argument more valid. What you say here is a consequence of the factors that back up Bitcoin, but this is not what gives it strength or backs it up by itself. In fact, I have already explained this in one of my previous posts in this thread...
I've said that an asset needs BOTH security and backing to be a good store-of-value, and BTC has security (of a sort) but no Backing. I'm arguing that no amount of security can compensate for the lack of backing, the relationship is Multiplicative not Additive, a Million x Zero = Zero, you seem to be arguing that if something is just Secure enough that Backing is unnecessary. If we reverse the relationship and hypothesize an asset that's backing is perfect but is impossible to secure from theft, no one would call that asset a good store-of-value. Ok, let's start again. A currency in the gold standard is backed up by gold, right? Gold has some value, but this value is subjective in nature as well as for all other goods. This means that it is not determined by some property of gold (or amount of labor required to produce it, for that matter), but is determined by the importance an individual places on it for the achievement of his aims. Without this subjective valuation shared by the majority of people gold would be worth next to nothing. Now, if you agree that security of Bitcoin has value in the eyes of the individual as it does, you inevitably come with logical necessity to the conclusion that security IS backing up Bitcoin. Actually, anything inherent to a store of value that has subjective value will be backing it up, and the more people share this attitude, the more strength the store of value gets It's a pity really that you went on a path of obfuscating and confusing matters here... |
|
|
|
There is no doublespeak here. I do not hold two contradictory beliefs without question. I question everything, and after many MANY years I have come to the inescapable conclusion that government in it's current and historical form is untenable if we are to have a long term future.
Doublespeak (as per Wikipedia) is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words and is used to trick or deceive people. You say about people who don't conform that "they would likely move as they would find it impossible to interact with those around them". In simple words that means that the life of those who disagree with the majority would be made as unbearable and intolerable so that they would have to move somewhere, thereby realizing their "undisputed right of exit". As you may guess, I don't see much difference between such "relocations" and forced evictions... What is this if not doublespeak? |
|
|
|
But I was referring to right of exit from the organizations. If I declare that I am no longer a subject of the United States of America, then I will be ignored for the most part, taxed as if I were, and then jailed if I refuse. On my own land. Even if I am self sufficient. If I object in more than words, I will be shot and killed by the "police" (thugs is a better word, but I don't want to be that insulting. To thugs.) If I want to have no part of some ridiculous, dangerous boondoggle that my rulers have decided upon, I have no choice. If I want to have weapons, I have to seek their permission. If I want to run a business, I need their license. If I want to drive, I need their license. If I want to BREATHE, I likely commit a crime in their "codified law".
Oh, really? At first you said that those who didn't conform in a given society would likely move as they would find it impossible to interact with those around them. After that you tried to refute my claim that in anarchy we would necessarily come to a system where majority would suppress minority, with a reference to an undisputed right of exit. As I got it, you were referring to those who would be in the minority as they would have a "privilege" of leaving, right? |
|
|
|
Right? Are you kidding?
I hoped you would read and understand what I had written about the doublespeak you are using again here. But, it seems, to no avail. Why should I ever search for an exit if I am in my own right? So, minority under your rule would just have to walk away somewhere. Is this what you mean by an undisputed right of exit? And you have the right to emigrate, so government doesn't claim you as its property, either publicly or implicitly (I'm not speaking about slave states here for evident reasons). Your point is void...
No. You don't. They will tax you for TEN YEARS if you renounce your citizenship. Here in the US, that is. Yes, some other countries actually allow their subjects to permanently leave. I didn't say that you should renounce your citizenship. In my post I was talking about emigration as you can see. How can they actually tax you if you are beyond their reach? Or has the US government already forbidden its citizens to leave the territory of the USA? I heard quite the opposite, that many are trying to get into the USA, either legal or illegal... |
|
|
|
I guess I have only one more question: is it worth debating this? Or have you already made your mind up?
Whom is this question aimed at? If you ask me, then what should I have made up my mind to actually? Personally, I like the idea of the only true Anarchism where each man stands for himself and is worth what he's actually worth, no strings attached. I surely despise this glamor hippie version that so many admire so much here, with all their doublespeak and that crap about ostracism... |
|
|
|
I wonder what would happen if Japan started bullying Russia over disputed islands of South Sakhalin which were taken by Russia after the WWII. Formally they are still at war without peace treaty signed between the states...
Those small islands (or rather two small islands plus a few rocks) are completely worthless. On the other hand, valuable gas deposits are located near the Shankaku Islands (the reason for current problems). So there is no chance of a conflict between Russia and Japan. Those small islands may be completely worthless as such but he who controls them also controls the La Pérouse Strait which divides the southern part of Sakhalin from the northern part of the Japanese island of Hokkaido... |
|
|
|
But China did actually bully Russia in 1960s. It even came to armed clashes along the border. During the Sino-Soviet border conflict, the Russians over-ran Chinese positions in a few weeks time while suffering only a few dozen casualties (compared to ~ 1,000 for the PLA). China had its massive manpower. Wanted to check its' efficiency and therefore poked the Soviets. The Russians returned in kind and the Chinese kept quiet ever since. So it seems that the Asian tiger has finally licked its wounds and is now searching for a new "prey" to sink its teeth into... |
|
|
|
Do states explicitly prohibit ostracism or make people keep connections with bad guys?
school So the cause for today's anarchism popularity lies in the fact that modern anarchists were forced to hobnob with bad guys in school... And now they're trying to get rid of their youth complexes through sticking to anarchism and just can't help dreaming to bring ostracism upon their implacable "friends". Could I ever assume anything of the kind? |
|
|
|
Ну что, завтра деньги будут? Я там у вас на сайте видел максимальный срок ожидания при банковском переводе почти месяц длиной (или даже больше), это кто так попал и когда такое случилось, если не секрет?
Если банк не подведет - завтра будут. По времени вывода - это ошибка ввода данных. Реальный максимальный срок по банковским переводам - неделя. По ЯД - та же фигня. Реальный максимальный срок около суток. Ждёмс... Неделя ещё куда ни шло, но месяц это уже чересчур (мы же не знаем, что там произошло). Полагаю, логичнее было бы выводить среднее время ожидания поступления средств, только не арифметическое среднее, а медианное среднее (чтобы исключить влияние случаев, когда перевод задерживается по типу описанных в посте причин)... |
|
|
|
While I agree, that the monopolization of power is most profitable (for those in power), I would imagine that better cost-effectiveness (if that would be what we're really after) would be achieved through competition.
Real competition for power (or rather struggle) always leads to its monopolization while ineffectively and wastefully spending resources and human lives, with the winner usually extinguishing all substantial resistance afterwards. Do you really think anything has considerably changed since Ancient Rome? |
|
|
|
Very simple really, just a few words. Because it becomes profitable. When you don't have a monopoly of power you have to compete with someone else for it, and so you are predetermined by your position (liable to failure) to strip everyone around you of everything they may happen to have. Almost the same happens when warfare begins (external competition for power), government begins plundering their own population in an effort to retain the power with any means available. When nothing threatens the monopoly of power, it becomes profitable in the long run to turn into "benevolent protectors"
I think no one here idealizes state...
Thanks for your reply. I think I see your point. Quite a scary conclusion (bolded) you're reaching there. We are reduced to hoping, that the entities in power recognize this and indeed turn into benevolent protectors. Also there are other factors, besides external threats, which might turn them towards looting their citizens, like greed, corruption, lust for power & wealth etc. If the entities in power don't recognize this (let's assume this) and turn to looting their citizens, they usually wind up as they ended in 1789 in France, as an example. So in the end the power is monopolized by those who are not only able to grab it in the first place, but also able to hold it long enough, which is impossible without becoming a "benevolent protector" |
|
|
|
So there is no chance of a conflict between Russia and Japan.
And Japan bullying Russia? Really? If Japan provokes Russia the latter will sweep the floor with the Japanese.
Russia is having the largest number of nuclear weapons in the world. They are having the best Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles. They are having the best air-defense system in the world. The Russian regular army alone numbers more than a million, with millions more in the reserves.
China is having just the manpower. Japan is having the technology. Russia have both.
But China did actually bully Russia in 1960s. It even came to armed clashes along the border. So we have Russia (then much more powerful and truculent USSR) not smashing China to smithereens (though China did suffer some human losses back then) and China which was not afraid to come to blows with a superior opponent. Has anything really changed since then (in respect to China, first of all)? |
|
|
|
Что говорят о биткоине сами китайцы Гонконг в этом смысле также является зоной окруженной «кольцом безопасности» Колючей проволокой что ли с вышками обнесли? Хотя с китайцев станется, они вроде как давеча Японией воевать собирались... |
|
|
|
Если честно, мне не понятно, почему все везде ищут заговор и какой-то большой палец, который кабеля порежет, спутники собьет с биткоином обязательно бороться, такое ощущение, что везде все ищут подвох..
И пароли! и приватные ключи нафига вообще, и децентрализация, и proof of work. От кого пытаются защитится? подвоха ждут, странные. Ведь все люди честные, биржи не ломают, заговоры не строят, не ддосят, биткоины не воруют. Это троллинг или наивность? Может быть всё-таки поиск золотой середины? Не то, что бы все люди были честные, а биржи никто не ломал, вопрос скорее в грамотном, рациональном использовании и распределении ограниченных ресурсов. А то получится как в СССР - Буран в космос улетел, а страна развалилась... |
|
|
|
no backing You keep saying that. It's just not how reality works. Bitcoin is backed by consensus among every bitcoin holder that it is worth investing fiat in. By the will of the people. The strength of the network and the lack of centralization is what allows us to enforce this will upon those who would take it down. In contrast, fiat is backed by states that confiscate peoples fiat at will. Practical application trumps abstract theory every time. Impaler was absolutely wrong about security of Bitcoin adding nothing to its strength as a store of value for rather evident reasons which I have shown (it works the same way as taxes and legalization of money do), but this doesn't make your argument more valid. What you say here is a consequence of the factors that back up Bitcoin, but this is not what gives it strength or backs it up by itself. In fact, I have already explained this in one of my previous posts in this thread... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
