= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
mwengler comments on Estimate the Cost of Immortality - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (115)
Yes nice summary of the original point of the entire thread. Money (which is trade, n'est-ce pas?) is just one way of getting something.
And the argument has been can we get more of something by abandoning money. And you and I have pretty much been saying "almost certainly not, what proposal do you have that hasn't already been discredited?"
Mais non, money is not "just" trade or "just" one way of getting something. Off the top of my head, money has multiple roles which include being:
In particular, the last role is vital for the informational function of money.
Mais non, money is not "just" trade or "just" one way of getting something. Off the top of my head, money has multiple roles which include being:
medium of exchange (that's trade)
store of value
Which is time shifted trade. I.e. I trade a perishable good now (like my labor or a bottle of milk) for some money, I store it for a while, and then I buy something with it. I can't imagine that this is anything more than a description of what we mean when we say "store of value"
And how does money do that? By being used to trade for different goods, money provides a common denominator for an externalizable ranking of values. (my internal ranking of values, a 25 cent caramel is worth much more than a few $10s of bucks for some sea urchin served in some restaurants as a delicacy.
But if two of these three functions seem like something other than trade to you, enjoy.