Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 11:45:49 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 [1126] 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807090 times)
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
April 05, 2015, 07:01:40 AM
 #22501

Value, as a concept, is inherently subjective.

Therefore the "intrinsic" adjective is redundant so should be just dropped for correctness once you grok the value=subjective bit. Intrinsic value is a sloppy term, historically used to describe the objective physical properties, e.g. conductivity, malleability, corrosion-resistance of gold, silver, lead. The intrinsic properties of objects can be valued, but the existence of the properties themselves is an objective reality that can not be extended to the human values placed upon them.

Absolutely true. Value is a "nominalization" to borrow a term from NLP: http://youtu.be/1sceRsmT1yc


Good vid thanks. Feel like I could have wrote much of that myself! but Worth has lucidly expounded and expanded on it thoroughly ... and it is a much needed topic that people need to learn about, kudos.

Edit: here's another great, clear vid re: What is Bitcoin wonder if these have made it on top r/Bitcoin yet?

1481283949
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481283949

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481283949
Reply with quote  #2

1481283949
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481283949
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481283949

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481283949
Reply with quote  #2

1481283949
Report to moderator
1481283949
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481283949

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481283949
Reply with quote  #2

1481283949
Report to moderator
1481283949
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481283949

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481283949
Reply with quote  #2

1481283949
Report to moderator
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
April 05, 2015, 10:34:17 AM
 #22502

Value, as a concept, is inherently subjective.

Therefore the "intrinsic" adjective is redundant so should be just dropped for correctness once you grok the value=subjective bit. Intrinsic value is a sloppy term, historically used to describe the objective physical properties, e.g. conductivity, malleability, corrosion-resistance of gold, silver, lead. The intrinsic properties of objects can be valued, but the existence of the properties themselves is an objective reality that can not be extended to the human values placed upon them.

No. The word intrinsic means in itself, and it is perfectly proper to use. It is not conflicting with subjective.

Subjective allows for different values to be assigned by different individuals, which is important for the freedom, as in free market. Subjective is also a good word. But since all value is subjective, it is not useful for distinguishing between money and other things.

The intrinsic concept is important for understanding the difference between money and other valuable things. You can use other words, for instance value for direct use, but the word intrinsic is good and I protest the theft and destruction of that word.

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
April 05, 2015, 10:52:40 AM
 #22503

To be able to distinguish intrinsic value from exchange value is essential in understanding money and essential for understanding why bitcoin is good money. It is the basis for discussing Aristoteles' definition of money, Mises' regression theorem and gold. Without a clear understanding of these simple concepts, the discussion degenerates into gibberish.

I don't care if Warren Buffet does not understand it. That only shows that you can be a successful business man without that specific knowledge. But in this thread, which is the center of bitcoin knowledge, it should be the basis for discussion.

Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
April 05, 2015, 03:18:36 PM
 #22504

Absolutely true. Value is a "nominalization" to borrow a term from NLP: http://youtu.be/1sceRsmT1yc

To further elucidate the points made in the video, nominalization (a.k.a. reification, or what Mises called hypostatization, the tendency toward which he named "the worst enemy of clear thinking") is when you convert an abstract concept or action/process into a noun, and then end up treating that noun as a sort of "thing in itself" and allow it take on some properties of a physical object. As a loose figure of speech it is innocent enough, but - as is always the case - when we try to take loose phrasing from everyday talk into more rigorous contexts without cleaning it up, the result is mass confusion leading to all sorts of fallacious reasoning. As the speaker said, politicians love to make use of this confusion.

Another way to talk about this is to call any conversion of an abstract concept or action/process into a noun "nominalization," since that what it literally is, but then to call the fallacious taking-seriously of this "reification" or "hypostatization." My preferred term is reification to refer to the error.

Some classic nominalizations and corresponding reifications:



As may be evident from the examples, when you start off with a loose nominalization (using nouns because they're convenient in English) you can end up committing the fallacy of reification. How exactly does the slip happen? There is actually another semantic error at work here: equivocation, where a word is used in two different meanings at the speaker's convenience, or inadvertently.

In other words, what happens in each case is that the noun form of the word being the same as the verb form makes it especially easy to switch back and forth between them, and pretty soon the people forget that the noun they are talking about is not an entity, but actually some process that itself involves physical objects or entities: water molecules that wave, people that value gold bars, mileposts that are spaced out. It's incoherent to speak of a wave without something doing the waving, or to speak of gold having value without someone doing the valuing, or to speak of space curving if we are maintaining that space=nothingness. It becomes an implied equivocation because the meaning of "wave," "value," and "space" has subtly been allowed to change in the course of the argument. Whereas we started off taking it as obvious that some objects were waving, some people were valuing something, and some objects were spaced, we ended up silently shifting the meaning to exclude those objects and people.

Now the term "intrinsic value" might have been useful if not for this reification trap. We could use it to refer to the direct use value people place on something, as opposed to its exchange value in the market, as even Mises himself did. Unfortunately, all experience hath shewn that the word intrinsic overwhelmingly tends to lead people into the reification error described above, because this is a basic human tendency baked into the social pressure of language (things that "sound right" tend to carry a weight that feels like social authority). Intrinsic sounds like "in and of itself," with no reference to a valuator. This tendency makes using this word just asking for trouble. It invites misunderstanding time and again.

To be clearer, then, I strongly recommend avoiding the term "intrinsic value" and instead using "direct use value" or similar to distinguish from exchange value.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
April 05, 2015, 03:23:53 PM
 #22505

pack your bags.  we're going up.
Hazir
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


Illusion is the first of all pleasures.


View Profile
April 05, 2015, 03:41:10 PM
 #22506

pack your bags.  we're going up.
I don't think so we now have the long Easter weekend, when it is expected and and quite obvious to see no price movement at all. I think that more than 70% of BTC trade is in China right now. They don't have an Easter there, so it is just as I expect bitcoin is brice is stagnant.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
April 05, 2015, 03:46:13 PM
 #22507

pack your bags.  we're going up.
I don't think so we now have the long Easter weekend, when it is expected and and quite obvious to see no price movement at all. I think that more than 70% of BTC trade is in China right now. They don't have an Easter there, so it is just as I expect bitcoin is brice is stagnant.

in years past, we've had monster ramps during Easter weekend.  everyone sitting home with nothing to do except trade bits.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
April 05, 2015, 03:48:31 PM
 #22508

pack your bags.  we're going up.

again ? :-)
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
April 05, 2015, 04:06:01 PM
 #22509

The Only TV News Report On The Economy You'll Ever Need

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN2iVe8_Ato
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-04/only-tv-news-report-economy-youll-ever-need

NUMBERS Angry
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
April 05, 2015, 04:56:12 PM
 #22510

Absolutely true. Value is a "nominalization" to borrow a term from NLP: http://youtu.be/1sceRsmT1yc

To further elucidate the points made in the video, nominalization (a.k.a. reification, or what Mises called hypostatization, the tendency toward which he named "the worst enemy of clear thinking") is when you convert an abstract concept or action/process into a noun, and then end up treating that noun as a sort of "thing in itself" and allow it take on some properties of a physical object. As a loose figure of speech it is innocent enough, but - as is always the case - when we try to take loose phrasing from everyday talk into more rigorous contexts without cleaning it up, the result is mass confusion leading to all sorts of fallacious reasoning. As the speaker said, politicians love to make use of this confusion.

Another way to talk about this is to call any conversion of an abstract concept or action/process into a noun "nominalization," since that what it literally is, but then to call the fallacious taking-seriously of this "reification" or "hypostatization." My preferred term is reification to refer to the error.

Some classic nominalizations and corresponding reifications:



As may be evident from the examples, when you start off with a loose nominalization (using nouns because they're convenient in English) you can end up committing the fallacy of reification. How exactly does the slip happen? There is actually another semantic error at work here: equivocation, where a word is used in two different meanings at the speaker's convenience, or inadvertently.

In other words, what happens in each case is that the noun form of the word being the same as the verb form makes it especially easy to switch back and forth between them, and pretty soon the people forget that the noun they are talking about is not an entity, but actually some process that itself involves physical objects or entities: water molecules that wave, people that value gold bars, mileposts that are spaced out. It's incoherent to speak of a wave without something doing the waving, or to speak of gold having value without someone doing the valuing, or to speak of space curving if we are maintaining that space=nothingness. It becomes an implied equivocation because the meaning of "wave," "value," and "space" has subtly been allowed to change in the course of the argument. Whereas we started off taking it as obvious that some objects were waving, some people were valuing something, and some objects were spaced, we ended up silently shifting the meaning to exclude those objects and people.

Now the term "intrinsic value" might have been useful if not for this reification trap. We could use it to refer to the direct use value people place on something, as opposed to its exchange value in the market, as even Mises himself did. Unfortunately, all experience hath shewn that the word intrinsic overwhelmingly tends to lead people into the reification error described above, because this is a basic human tendency baked into the social pressure of language (things that "sound right" tend to carry a weight that feels like social authority). Intrinsic sounds like "in and of itself," with no reference to a valuator. This tendency makes using this word just asking for trouble. It invites misunderstanding time and again.

To be clearer, then, I strongly recommend avoiding the term "intrinsic value" and instead using "direct use value" or similar to distinguish from exchange value.

that's probably not a bad idea. 

the term "intrinsic" has been abused quite markedly in the whole Bitcoin vs gold debate, especially when describing gold.  it reflects both a laziness in the use of the language or just sheer inability to understand the multiple facets and intricacies of gold valuation and how they compare to something even more complex, ie, Bitcoin.
sporket
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280



View Profile
April 05, 2015, 05:08:31 PM
 #22511

pack your bags.  we're going up.

Soon?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
April 05, 2015, 07:16:23 PM
 #22512

pack your bags.  we're going up.

Soon?


Soon is all relative.
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142



View Profile
April 05, 2015, 07:38:23 PM
 #22513

Value, as a concept, is inherently subjective.

Therefore the "intrinsic" adjective is redundant so should be just dropped for correctness once you grok the value=subjective bit. Intrinsic value is a sloppy term, historically used to describe the objective physical properties, e.g. conductivity, malleability, corrosion-resistance of gold, silver, lead. The intrinsic properties of objects can be valued, but the existence of the properties themselves is an objective reality that can not be extended to the human values placed upon them.

 ^ This

"If people value something, it has value; if people do not value some­thing, it does not have value; and there is no intrinsic about it."

or, as someone on reddit put it more boldly:

nothing is fucking intrinsically valuable.

in yet other words: "the eval() function is context-sensitive"

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
April 05, 2015, 08:06:06 PM
 #22514

Mycelium now working with Trezor.  Dynamite combo.
NotHatinJustTrollin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
April 05, 2015, 08:33:49 PM
 #22515

Value, as a concept, is inherently subjective.

Therefore the "intrinsic" adjective is redundant so should be just dropped for correctness once you grok the value=subjective bit. Intrinsic value is a sloppy term, historically used to describe the objective physical properties, e.g. conductivity, malleability, corrosion-resistance of gold, silver, lead. The intrinsic properties of objects can be valued, but the existence of the properties themselves is an objective reality that can not be extended to the human values placed upon them.

 ^ This

"If people value something, it has value; if people do not value some­thing, it does not have value; and there is no intrinsic about it."

or, as someone on reddit put it more boldly:

nothing is fucking intrinsically valuable.

in yet other words: "the eval() function is context-sensitive"

We can stay here all day talking about the definition of intrinsic value, but at the end of the day, what some people refer to when they say "intrinsic value" is that people use it for itself and not only for its functions as money (medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value).

Example: People use gold for itself (jewellery etc). Therefore gold has "intrinsic value".
You can call it whatever you want, thing is, it's something fiat money or bitcoin don't have.
Whether that "intrinsic value" is culturally determined or not doesn't matter. RIGHT NOW people use gold for itself. They don't do that with fiat or bitcoin.
It's quite simple really.

By the way, I'm no gold bug and I don't use that argument to say that gold is better money (because I don't think it is).



"Im here to tell you the ability to publish information to an immutable globally shared memory system (history) is its intrinsic use"
^^^How is that the intrinsic value of a bitcoin? It's the blockchain that can do that not bitcoin, bitcoin is the blockchain security mechanism/reward token. Any distributed ledger/database could do that.
Last of the V8s
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 131



View Profile
April 05, 2015, 08:37:54 PM
 #22516


 But in this thread, which is the center of bitcoin knowledge,


are you on crack? sane people occasionally pop in here, but mostly it's a troll thread for self-deluding old scatterbrains

14hhm2Pxcxd3WxAv1heGu9dgtgSaPSsJCJ
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
April 05, 2015, 08:44:55 PM
 #22517

Value, as a concept, is inherently subjective.

Therefore the "intrinsic" adjective is redundant so should be just dropped for correctness once you grok the value=subjective bit. Intrinsic value is a sloppy term, historically used to describe the objective physical properties, e.g. conductivity, malleability, corrosion-resistance of gold, silver, lead. The intrinsic properties of objects can be valued, but the existence of the properties themselves is an objective reality that can not be extended to the human values placed upon them.

 ^ This

"If people value something, it has value; if people do not value some­thing, it does not have value; and there is no intrinsic about it."

or, as someone on reddit put it more boldly:

nothing is fucking intrinsically valuable.

in yet other words: "the eval() function is context-sensitive"

We can stay here all day talking about the definition of intrinsic value, but at the end of the day, what some people refer to when they say "intrinsic value" is that people use it for itself and not only for its functions as money (medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value).

Example: People use gold for itself (jewellery etc). Therefore gold has "intrinsic value".
You can call it whatever you want, thing is, it's something fiat money or bitcoin don't have.
Whether that "intrinsic value" is culturally determined or not doesn't matter. RIGHT NOW people use gold for itself. They don't do that with fiat or bitcoin.
It's quite simple really.

By the way, I'm no gold bug and I don't use that argument to say that gold is better money (because I don't think it is).



"Im here to tell you the ability to publish information to an immutable globally shared memory system (history) is its intrinsic use"
^^^How is that the intrinsic value of a bitcoin? It's the blockchain that can do that not bitcoin, bitcoin is the blockchain security mechanism/reward token. Any distributed ledger/database could do that.

still doesn't get it  Cheesy

just do us a favor and get your sorry concern troll ass out of here.


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
NotHatinJustTrollin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
April 05, 2015, 08:48:31 PM
 #22518

Value, as a concept, is inherently subjective.

Therefore the "intrinsic" adjective is redundant so should be just dropped for correctness once you grok the value=subjective bit. Intrinsic value is a sloppy term, historically used to describe the objective physical properties, e.g. conductivity, malleability, corrosion-resistance of gold, silver, lead. The intrinsic properties of objects can be valued, but the existence of the properties themselves is an objective reality that can not be extended to the human values placed upon them.

 ^ This

"If people value something, it has value; if people do not value some­thing, it does not have value; and there is no intrinsic about it."

or, as someone on reddit put it more boldly:

nothing is fucking intrinsically valuable.

in yet other words: "the eval() function is context-sensitive"

We can stay here all day talking about the definition of intrinsic value, but at the end of the day, what some people refer to when they say "intrinsic value" is that people use it for itself and not only for its functions as money (medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value).

Example: People use gold for itself (jewellery etc). Therefore gold has "intrinsic value".
You can call it whatever you want, thing is, it's something fiat money or bitcoin don't have.
Whether that "intrinsic value" is culturally determined or not doesn't matter. RIGHT NOW people use gold for itself. They don't do that with fiat or bitcoin.
It's quite simple really.

By the way, I'm no gold bug and I don't use that argument to say that gold is better money (because I don't think it is).



"Im here to tell you the ability to publish information to an immutable globally shared memory system (history) is its intrinsic use"
^^^How is that the intrinsic value of a bitcoin? It's the blockchain that can do that not bitcoin, bitcoin is the blockchain security mechanism/reward token. Any distributed ledger/database could do that.

still doesn't get it  Cheesy

just do us a favor and get your sorry concern troll ass out of here.


sdp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 401



View Profile WWW
April 05, 2015, 09:02:37 PM
 #22519


Example: People use gold for itself (jewellery etc). Therefore gold has "intrinsic value".
You can call it whatever you want, thing is, it's something fiat money or bitcoin don't have.
Whether that "intrinsic value" is culturally determined or not doesn't matter. RIGHT NOW people use gold for itself. They don't do that with fiat or bitcoin.
It's quite simple really.

By the way, I'm no gold bug and I don't use that argument to say that gold is better money (because I don't think it is).



"Im here to tell you the ability to publish information to an immutable globally shared memory system (history) is its intrinsic use"
^^^How is that the intrinsic value of a bitcoin? It's the blockchain that can do that not bitcoin, bitcoin is the blockchain security mechanism/reward token. Any distributed ledger/database could do that.

I happen to agree with you but I would tend to use ironic statements instead:

I can blow my nose with paper money.  So it has "intrinsic value".  I look at people who would waste gold on making jewlery and find it is rather analogous.  Copper is much more useful than paper, but the same weight of paper in paper money is considered more valuable.  Miners for some reason do not want to accept $200 in pennies for a bitcion.

But the next time someone says gold has intrinsic value therefore worth more, offer that five cents in pennies should be considered worth more than a hundred dollar bill by the same argument.  Dollars, Euros, bitcoin, they are all tokens in a monetary system.

What gives bitcoin more value over say, its many other altcoins?  It is all of the people who decide to back it.  It ironically is the most light weight cryptocurrency because there are many spv-wallets, whereas often altcoins only have Satoshi clients.

sdp

██████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████
█████                                    █████
█████                                    █████
█████                                    █████
█████           ▄█▄        ▄█▄           █████
█████          ████████████████          █████
█████           ▀████████████▀           █████
█████           ████▀    ▀████           █████
█████           ████▄    ▄████           █████
█████           ▄████████████▄           █████
█████          ████████████████          █████
█████           ▀█▀        ▀█▀           █████
█████                                    █████
█████                                    █████
█████                                    █████
██████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████
▄██████████████████████████▄
██                        ██
██                        ██
██                        ██
██             ▄█▀███████████
██              ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀
██                        ██
██                        ██
██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██
 ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

▄██████████████████████████▄
██                        ██
██                        ██
██                        ██
██                        ██
████████████████████████████
██                        ██
██                        ██
██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██
 ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▄██████████████████████████▄
██                 ▄███▀  ██
██             ▄▄██▀▀  ▄█ ██
██     ▄    ▄███▀▀  ▄███  ██
██    ██▄▄██▀▀   ▄█████   ██
██   ████▀▀  ▄▄██▀▀ ▀█    ██
██  █▀▀   ▄▄██▀           ██
██    ▄▄███▀              ██
██▄▄▄████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██
 ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

▄██████████████████████████▄
██                        ██
██  ████▄  ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ██
██     ▀█▄ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██    ██
██      ██         ██     ██
██       ███████████      ██
██        ▄▄     ▄▄       ██
██       ▀██▀   ▀██▀      ██
██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██
 ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▄██████████████████████████▄
██                       ▄██
██                     █████
██         ▄         ███▀ ██
██       ▄███     ▄███▀   ██
██   ▄▄███▀▀███▄████▀     ██
██▄▄███▀     ▀███▀        ██
████▀                     ██
██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██
 ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

▄███████████▄  ██████████████
█           █  █            █
█           █  █            █
█           █  █            █
█           █  █            █
█           █  █            █
█           █  █            █
█           █  █            █
██████▀██████  ██████▀███████
 ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
April 05, 2015, 10:25:18 PM
 #22520

Absolutely true. Value is a "nominalization" to borrow a term from NLP: http://youtu.be/1sceRsmT1yc

To further elucidate the points made in the video, nominalization (a.k.a. reification, or what Mises called hypostatization, the tendency toward which he named "the worst enemy of clear thinking") is when you convert an abstract concept or action/process into a noun, and then end up treating that noun as a sort of "thing in itself" and allow it take on some properties of a physical object. As a loose figure of speech it is innocent enough, but - as is always the case - when we try to take loose phrasing from everyday talk into more rigorous contexts without cleaning it up, the result is mass confusion leading to all sorts of fallacious reasoning. As the speaker said, politicians love to make use of this confusion.

Another way to talk about this is to call any conversion of an abstract concept or action/process into a noun "nominalization," since that what it literally is, but then to call the fallacious taking-seriously of this "reification" or "hypostatization." My preferred term is reification to refer to the error.

Some classic nominalizations and corresponding reifications:



As may be evident from the examples, when you start off with a loose nominalization (using nouns because they're convenient in English) you can end up committing the fallacy of reification. How exactly does the slip happen? There is actually another semantic error at work here: equivocation, where a word is used in two different meanings at the speaker's convenience, or inadvertently.

In other words, what happens in each case is that the noun form of the word being the same as the verb form makes it especially easy to switch back and forth between them, and pretty soon the people forget that the noun they are talking about is not an entity, but actually some process that itself involves physical objects or entities: water molecules that wave, people that value gold bars, mileposts that are spaced out. It's incoherent to speak of a wave without something doing the waving, or to speak of gold having value without someone doing the valuing, or to speak of space curving if we are maintaining that space=nothingness. It becomes an implied equivocation because the meaning of "wave," "value," and "space" has subtly been allowed to change in the course of the argument. Whereas we started off taking it as obvious that some objects were waving, some people were valuing something, and some objects were spaced, we ended up silently shifting the meaning to exclude those objects and people.

Now the term "intrinsic value" might have been useful if not for this reification trap. We could use it to refer to the direct use value people place on something, as opposed to its exchange value in the market, as even Mises himself did. Unfortunately, all experience hath shewn that the word intrinsic overwhelmingly tends to lead people into the reification error described above, because this is a basic human tendency baked into the social pressure of language (things that "sound right" tend to carry a weight that feels like social authority). Intrinsic sounds like "in and of itself," with no reference to a valuator. This tendency makes using this word just asking for trouble. It invites misunderstanding time and again.

To be clearer, then, I strongly recommend avoiding the term "intrinsic value" and instead using "direct use value" or similar to distinguish from exchange value.

You are right that the word can be misused. I protest the distruction of the word through this misuse, and state that "intrinsic" value as the value otherwise referred to as value "for direct use", is good.

The alternative "for direct use" can also easily be muddled by people not wanting the secrets of money to be revealed. For example, a wholesaler have no direct use for his wares, due to the share volume he trades, that does not mean that the value of his commodity is not intrinsic.

I am really annoyed by the "intrinsic value is impossible, the value is subjective, stupid" lectures that is going on. I put forward that the value of something is intrinsic, not that it is objective. Of course it is subjective, no value can exist unless there is someone that prefers one thing over another, with no responsibility towards nature or anyone else to explain why he thinks so.

If we let trolls destroy every word, discourse is made impossible, which may be the purpose of the destruction of the word. Again I propose that this forum and this thread is at the forefront of understanding gold, fiat and bitcoin, and we need clear concepts. I cannot correct these errors in all threads, the volume of confusion is too high, but in this limited space it is possible.



Pages: « 1 ... 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 [1126] 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 ... 1560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!