object = subject AND object does not = subject

Just sayin'...so you can be rich while you're poor.

In my opinion, the problems stemming from public education occur because of the following two (although, there are others) reasons.

1.)  Curriculum is influenced by media
2.)  It is compulsory

Hence, creativity in thinking is lacking.

The most popular subjects taught and most popular jobs attained are related to fields popularized by the media.  Ultimately, the importance and validity of any discipline taught in school is rooted in philosophy and an understanding of logical syntax.  How popular are philosophers in the media?  Not very.  How important is the sound application of logic in other fields?  Even scientists, who are supposed to strictly adhere to the limits of the scientific method and the laws of probability, carelessly make faulty assumptions in the classroom (or even worse, in scientific journals) on a daily basis -- if any scientist EVER tells me he proved something because of inductive reasoning, I'm gonna smack him.  And I'll challenge E=mc^2 all day any day.

On a side note, give the Christians and other religious people a little leeway.  Faith is underestimated when it comes to 'knowing.'

Haha there are generally 2 ways to fix a problem:  1.)  Change the external circumstance so that there is no longer a problem (e.g. redistribute some currency, x, proportionally among the population), or 2.)  Redefine your perspective so that the problem is no longer a problem to begin with.  If people do not believe the currency, x, has value, then the notions of 'rich' and 'poor' are also redefined.  And with regards to monetary theory, logic is syntactic throughout the universe.  If you know logic and the operation of systems, monetary theory isn't so hard (though there are many elements to deconstruct before one can really understand it).

Law of Thermodynamics - Energy converts from useable to non-useable configurations.  The intrinsic value is not energy.  Dig a hole in your backyard and see how energetic and useful the hole is.  Or, before you dig the hole, convert the energy into direct value (look how many holes I dug!  I'll trade them for your car).

Utility increases in direct correlation with increases in intrinsic value.  If gold was suddenly able to facilitate electron flow faster, this would not be more beneficial to gold.  Furthermore, quantitative/qualitative value does not increase in direct correlation with monetary gain.  It tapers off.

Having a greater advantage with x is a part of what I'm talking about.  If a community did not accept x as a currency (or local currencies -- I believe they have similar problems), then yes, the mechanic would be forced to adjust to the local conditions.  He could, for example, exchange car repairs for part-time labor, food, other resources, building materials, tools, etc.  This would be apply to other circumstances as well, such as poorer patients that cannot afford medical operations with x but can offer other possessions, time, resources, etc.  The lack of a global/local currency would force businesses to re-prioritize, emphasizing importance on social relationships rather than monetary gain.  If people agree x has value, and this is globally accepted, then everyone will strive to obtain x.  The value a customer receives from having his car fixed is no longer enough because he lost x which, after all, is what is agreed upon as the standard of value.  Remove x and there is a more direct relationship between work and product value.  Keep x and no matter what value one receives from any interaction, I think his mind will always return to the lure of x...

Hi, I'm Gigliomechacybertron and I like long walks on the beach.

Consider this scenario.  Let's say you have a guy who likes to work on cars.  He wants to run a mechanic shop.  Let's also say that there's a global currency, x.  Who are the customers that are going to be able to have their cars repaired?  The ones with greater amounts of x and x only.  But, if there's no global currency, then the mechanic is going to have to be much more thoughtful in what he could accept as payment that would be of value to him.  It seems like this may help eliminate the huge gap between the very rich and very poor over time.  I agree with you that figuring out the value of something is relative.  And that's why I think that any global currency will fail under the weight of its own problems.  If you place value on the process of exchange, then it places value on the relationship between exchangers.  I just think it might promote social harmony.  Global currencies create classes of social rank, and with it, greed.

Haha agreed.  Maybe you can give him 5 bitcoins for one of his goats.

~385 mhash with a 6990.  I invested enough $ to profit but not enough that I would be devastated to lose it.  And yes, I read the forums so I can learn.  I'm just trying a philosophical approach.  The topic was about something as abstract as value.  Anybody else ask the same question I did?

Haha be careful not to establish an absolute value on the product of that guy's cognition.  Or mine.  Value the process.

Haha is rational questioning a threat to your investment?  I'm not responsible for saving you.

Blah Blah Blah and 32 posts is > 5 posts how?

Here's a current problem I'm having with the Bitcoin model.

We all know, or have a basic understanding of, the fallacies of the current economic model that Bitcoin is designed to address.  But, one issue that I argue Bitcoin does not resolve is the idea of 'intrinsic value.'  I have read on these forums where others argue Bitcoin has intrinsic value, yet I fail to understand how this is so.  Why is it so important for a currency to have intrinsic value?  The answer is simple; without intrinsic value, a currency has absolutely zero value unless some external subject recognizes value in it.  In the past, this problem has attempted to be solved by 'pinning' the value of a currency to something else (e.g. USD to gold; Bitcoins to USD).  In any of these 'pinning' attempts, the value of the currency becomes increasingly abstracted from that which is valuable to humans.  So, what is valuable to humans?  I would argue two of the most fundamental values are the value of living, and the value of happiness.  Philosophically speaking, living and happiness are 'ends' in and of themselves; quantitatively, living fulfills the purpose of life (to live), and qualitatively, happiness relates to the quality of that life.  I propose that a currency worthy of continuance into the future must be 'pinned' as closely as possible to these intrinsic human values.  In this way, the currency must always retain some value because it would be entwined with that which is fundamentally valuable to humans.  Let's use crop seeds as an example.  Crop seeds, if used as currency, address both fundamental human values.  If you plant the seeds, you will reap food which immediately provides quantitative value (you get to continue to live and not starve to death) as well as qualitative value (satisfaction/content in being full).  Now, while a very hungry man may ascribe the seeds a higher value than a full man, the seeds never relinquish their value absolutely.  Even if every person on Earth were temporarily 'full,' the seeds retain future value as someone will eventually become hungry.  Gold and USD do not retain value in the same way.  All that is required for gold and USD to absolutely lose all value is for all persons to agree they have no value.  Try picking up some gold and eating it and see how valuable it is.  Try the same with paper currency, or roll yourself a Bitcoin Burrito. 

But, even a currency like crop seeds fails ultimately for one reason:  ANY attempt to establish a globally-recognized currency leads to an overextension of relative value.  Nobody will want crop seeds for a new car since the person owning the new car would obviously have satisfied any immediate threat to quantitative human value.  This applies to any other global currency.  The poor will stay poor, the rich will stay rich.

What is the solution?  Well, I think it's already been done.  Straight bartering.  Bartering incorporates both quantitative/qualitative value as well as absolute/relative value.  Since the process of bartering is distributed globally, the process itself has absolute value, but it also allows for each person to set their own relative quantitative/qualitative value on each bartered object.  Isn't this what Bitcoin does?  Wouldn't bitcoin operate in this way if it were to be globally accepted as a currency?  NO.  Global acceptance of a valued currency is much different than global acceptance of the process of exchange.  Think of the difference between cognition and meta-cognition.  Cognition as a process is absolutely valuable to anybody and anyone.  My ideas allow me to function and navigate life how I please.  Does this mean that another person values the product of my cognition?  Again, NO.  Through meta-cognition, I place my own relative value on the product of my cognition.  Similarly, one values the process of bartering, but may place relative values on the bartered objects.  Bitcoin, along with all other global currencies, fail in that they are the product of some other process, and thus have relative value only.  Were all bitcoins, gold, USD, etc. to be eliminated, there are still other ways to satisfy intrinsic quantitative/qualitative value requirements.  In a social world, bartering and exchange can never be eliminated.

My conclusion-
Any attempt to establish a global currency (centralized or decentralized) fails as people rely on the absolute value of the product when it has none.  I think the only way for a successful economic future is to place absolute value on the process of exchange, leaving relative value to be decided between exchanging parties.  This also seems like a way of escaping the "poor will stay poor, rich will stay rich" problem.  Where absolute value is placed on the process, then the distinction between poor/rich becomes relative, not absolute.  Hence, this also solves the problem of overextension of relative value since relative value is defined by the exchanging parties and not globally.

Yes, but again, poor people today are marginalized (in part) because they are uneducated about the ways they can efficiently use the little money they have.  For example, how many low S.E.S. people know how to effectively trade stock or invest in a retirement fund for maximum profit?  How many WOULD choose to do so knowing that there is a risk for loss when they need every penny they already own in USD?  Of course, this risk would diminish the more stable it becomes, but still...efficient bitcoin trading requires sufficient foresight.  This foresight is most easily obtained through internet research, but the ability to search the web effectively is also limited by SES factors.

True, though I assume that you DO have an adequate understanding of the bitcoin model.  See last part about relationship between S.E.S. and education.  Without good understanding, it's like gambling.

Ok, so, this is my first post on the forum.  I've done some preliminary searching for posts containing opinions on the strengths/weaknesses of the Bitcoin economic model, whom it favors, etc.  Simple question...were Bitcoin to become a stable worldwide currency, wouldn't it marginalize the poor even further?  I don't know a lot of poor folks who can rush off to the store to buy a killer GPU, or who have the necessary technical skill to even learn to configure and operate a GUIminer (not to mention the relationship between S.E.S. and education and the potential difficulty in understanding the Bitcoin model).