…is worth two in the bush.
We have all heard this little quip, made to demonstrate the value of a
sure thing as compared to the possibility (though not certainty) of an
alternative. In this little quip, one
can find the concept of both unit of measure and unit of value.
While the unit of measure (the bird) is not precise, it
satisfies the purpose. It offers a
common basis for comparison, a commodity that is quantifiable and measurable.
As to the unit of value, the teller of the tale suggests
that one bird (with certainty) is worth the possibility (but not certainty) of two
birds in the future. But is this
certain? It cannot be. It might be for
the teller of the tale. But it may not
be for anyone else. Some would certainly
prefer one option or the other, and not view the two as equal in worth.
Units of measure are objective. This is true for gallons, liters, feet, and
meters. It is true for dollars – certainly since 1971. For an advanced, division of labor economy,
this is a necessity – one the market will encourage for the purpose of
efficiency in trade. While units of
measure are objective, they are derived and agreed upon in a subjective manner –
people have agreed to that which works, that which facilitates communication
and trade.
Units of value, however, cannot be measured – what is the
value of 0.3 liters of a good beer? It might
be one thing to me and another to someone else.
While the unit of measure is certain, the unit of value is subjective –
different for each person approaching the bar.
The market approximates this through prices – prices expressed
in units of a common measure. Prices are
the expression of the value that the countless participants in the market place
on a good. Prices give an objective
measure to the subjective wants of participants. The offering price by the bartender of €3 for
the beer will separate those who value the beer at this amount or more from
those who find the value of the beer to be less.
So what of dollars? A
dollar is an objective unit of measure – a dollar is a dollar, always itself; a
mathematical identity. Certainly since
1971 it has not been definable in any other way. The value of the dollar – that is
subjective. It is worth what it is worth
to each individual participant in the market.
Measures must be objective if they are to serve a purpose;
value, however, will always be subjective – in the eye of the beholder.
A bird in the hand is worth…well, you fill in the rest.
In David Gordon's class on the life of Murray Rothbard he explains that MR was influenced by an idea called operationalism.
ReplyDeleteOperationalism is the proposition that the meaning of a scientific definition is the operation undertaken to measure it. Under operationalism an example given is that when we speak of a term "length" that we may not always be speaking of the same concept, because it depends upon how you intend to measure it. Gordon sees Rothbard influenced by these ideas in his use of "demonstrated preferences". If someone says that they really don't like such and such a thing, MR might say that it is useless in terms of science, because we are only trying to guess what is going on in someones mind. Until they have taken some action they haven't really demonstrated their preference, and that doesn't amount to much in scientific terms. Interestingly, however, Rothbard does accept the idea of utility (and of course marginal utility) even though the Austrians assert that utility cannot be measured. Despite his operationalist influences, he accepts this anyway. Anyway, I found that interesting.
I'm glad you posted this essay. I think it means that you are still enjoying the topic and do not mind further discussion. It is a good topic and I enjoy learning what I can as well.
We agree that values are subjective to the individual. However prices are objective. If I go to the store and buy a can of beans for 2 dollars, the exchanged happened, can be observed, and the price is without a doubt then objective. Even though my decision to trade the $2 for the can of beans was formulated subjectively. This I think is a form of demonstrated preference. I demonstrated that I prefer the beans to the $2. When it was only a notion in my noggin it was subjective, but once I did the deed it was objective fact.
The most fun or interesting question that I wish to ask you, bionic mosquito is the following: If I were to accept your proposition that a dollar is an objective measure, what is it that the dollar is measuring?
Here is another, if you don't mind clarifying your position a little from other conversations. Professor B from CA sometimes says that gold is the only substance(?) or commodity that has no price because all other goods are valued in gold, or something like that. I'm trying to understand when you say that a dollar is an objective unit of measurement do you have something similar to this in mind? Does dollar value stay the same and all other items rise and fall around it?
ReplyDeleteAlong these lines I was thinking of a simple thought experiment this morning. Click. You have a snapshot of the NYTimes but all you are able to read in the photo is that the price of a can of beans costs $2. You slip into a coma, only to wake up 2 days later, or 6 months later, or 5 years later. You don't know how long it has been. Click. Now you have a snapshot of the NYTimes and you can only see that the price of a can of beans costs $4. This is the only information that you have. How can you determine if the demand for beans went up, or if the supply of beans went down, or of the goods that $2 will fetch has fallen due to dollars being worth less. I think that you can not. It could be that there was a drought. Bad crop year. It could be that bean casserole is all the rage. It could be that the dollar has lost value. All you can know for sure is that the RATIO of dollars to beans has changed in beans' favor.
I think it is fundamental to understand that no one thing is a peg in the ground on value. This is what I think of when I hear that something is an objective measure of value. Perhaps I am misunderstanding… But I think of Professor B and hundreds like him that believe that only gold (or silver) are objective measures of value and all else fluctuates, but not the one true thing.
I imagine prices like 10,000 escalators all side by side. You can't see the top and you can't see the bottom but you find that you can easily and effortlessly step from one escalator to the other just by willing it. From your vantage point some escalators seem to be going up, some seem to be going up really fast, others seem to be going down at different rates of speed. But you have no absolute reference to really know. When you stand on one escalator your view of the other escalators is only relative. You have no absolute reference, but instead must only hop from one escalator to the other. This process never ends and it never rests. These are relative values and there is no getting off the ride.
Gee, I sure hope you are enjoying writing and thinking about this.
Regards,
gpond
“This is what I think of when I hear that something is an objective measure of value.”
DeleteYou didn’t hear this from me. I never wrote such a thing.
Your entire set of questions and comments boil down to this one statement of yours above, a statement I have not made. I have addressed this statement and versions of this statement many times in my posts at the DB thread, as well as here in this post.
At DB, I wrote (as one example): I see a difference in the two concepts: unit of measure and unit of value.
You will note: I did not mix the two. I see two different issues and two different concepts.
In this blog post, I wrote:
While the unit of measure (the bird) is not precise, it satisfies the purpose. It offers a common basis for comparison, a commodity that is quantifiable and measurable.
As to the unit of value, the teller of the tale suggests that one bird (with certainty) is worth the possibility (but not certainty) of two birds in the future. But is this certain? It cannot be. It might be for the teller of the tale. But it may not be for anyone else. Some would certainly prefer one option or the other, and not view the two as equal in worth.
Please note: I have never once said that there “is an objective measure of value.”
There is a unit of measure. Units of measure are objective.
There is a unit of value. A unit of value is a subjective concept. A unit of measure will derive in each observer of that unit a different subjective value.
We can both observe a dollar. We both see that it is a dollar. It is, in fact, a dollar. It cannot be anything other than a dollar. It always and everywhere is exactly equal to a dollar. This is objective.
What we each view as the value of the dollar is subjective.
I hesitate to write more, or address your other points although there are several items that I believe are worth further discussion. Your statement (which I cite above) is what must be clarified between us if we are to be able to communicate on this subject.
gpond
DeleteIn addition to my comments above, read this:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/07/value-is-always-and-everywhere.html
After it is clear that we are communicating regarding the distinction I make in my comment immediately above, and after you read this link, then let me know where you believe I am in error.
I posted this at DB on this topic, I think it is appropriate to include it in this thread:
ReplyDelete----------
DR: …you would see why I said that the dollar is not an objectively verifiable unit of measure….Therefore it is demonstrably false to say a dollar is always a dollar….why I said that the dollar is not an objectively verifiable unit of measure.
BM: I would say you are confusing units of measure and units of value, but I have said that too many times already. So I will do it your way: Do you have dollars, that when you look at them, do not measure up to other dollars? You are not able to objectively verify that the dollar you are looking at is, in fact, a dollar?
DR: Significantly when Wilson's government was elected in 1964 they inherited a deficit of £800 MILLION. Today the government deficit is running at about £130 BILLION net of any bailout money to the banks. This is a one hundred and sixtyfold increase. Just like the dollar the pound is not a reliable unit of measure.
BM: I take it from the sum of your statements in this and other posts that a) you believe there are many dollars that are not equal to other dollars (despite the labeling being identical), and b) the inequality is biased toward, if not completely in the direction of these unequal dollars measuring up to something less than a dollar.
DR: Surrender acknowledged.
BM: You are correct. I was wrong. As a token of my appreciation for your having taught me a valuable lesson, I will make you the following offer – all the while acknowledging that my offer can never fully repay the illumination you have provided:
I will relieve you of every dollar you own that you believe does not equal a dollar; every dollar that does not “measure up” to the other dollars (and as you suggest, equals something less than a dollar). Pull them all out of your wallet. Go to the bank and withdraw them. Gather them from your friends and family if you like. Get your neighbors to join in – I am so happy to have learned this from you that I really want to show my appreciation.
Tell me how unequal you think these are – the ones you have deemed unequal. Place a dollar value on these unequal, less-than-dollar dollars. Do they only measure 70 cents? 80 cents? You tell me what you think – how much less than a full dollar do these defective dollars actually measure. I will take your word for it, no questions asked.
I will then buy these defective dollars from you at a price equal distance between your lower measurement and the face value, resulting in profit for you. Don’t worry – even if you have dollars that only measure 5 cents, I will accept these as part of the deal.
I offer a 100% satisfaction guarantee: If you are not satisfied with any of the replacement dollars I send, I will continue to replace the dollars you deem defective until you have been satisfied that all of the dollars I have offered are, in fact, dollars – fully equal dollars, each one measuring exactly one dollar.
For clarity and by way of example, if you send me a total of 10,000 dollars that you say measures only 8,000 dollars (in total) send the 10,000 dollars to me and I will send you 9,000 dollars in return – half the difference; a 1,000 profit for you. If you don’t like any portion of the 9,000 dollars I sent to you, return these, and I will replace the defective dollars until you are satisfied.
I place no upper limit on the amount of defective dollars you send – my only condition is that these measure short, not long. But since this is the implication of your statements – that they measure short – this should place no hindrance to achieving your complete satisfaction.
No, no, no – please, don’t thank me. It is the least I can do after all the work you have done to shed light on this topic.
I await your reply.
"I hesitate to write more, or address your other points although there are several items that I believe are worth further discussion. Your statement (which I cite above) is what must be clarified between us if we are to be able to communicate on this subject."
ReplyDeleteBM,
Thank-you so much for having the patience to place your 2 posts to me on this thread. This morning after reading them both, and especially after re-reading your brief book review, it all became clear. I am uncertain if you intended as such, but your words presented themselves as a riddle to me. Because of your quote above that I included in this post, I will not go into much detail here, in case I would be spoiling some fun or some experiment you are undertaking… I have no idea. But I can say that I could cite chapter and verse where I was going wrong, and you were quite correct the whole time. The words were clearly there, and not tricky, but the meaning was hidden for me. If it is a riddle it is well made for hard-money types and goldbugs (like myself) who were steeped in the conventional wisdom of the hard money crowd. To grasp the riddle, I had to let go of something. Otherwise I would still be beating my head against a wall.
That was fun and enlightening, once it ceased being maddening.
I'm all but certain that I could answer the questions that I posed to you above myself now. When you no longer hesitate to write more, I would be happy to take up other things, or say more about to me was the solution to the "riddle".
Thanks again and Kind Regards,
gpond
gpond, thank you for this reply and comment.
DeleteI am not sure I intended a riddle. The Gary North article I cited in that book review was a revelation to me - not the idea he presented, but that he so simply and wonderfully captured the difficulty I had with what many in the hard-money camp would say about gold.
I will comment further on your post if you like, however if you actually have come to be able to answer the questions yourself, then perhaps there is no need.
Let me know if otherwise, as I will gladly do so.
In the meantime, I am curious regarding that which you had to let go!
I called it a riddle, but for me it was closer to what is known as a brain-teaser. A brain-teaser is usually a little story told and at the end the “victim” is asked a simple question. A brain-teaser usually attempts in the story to exploit an unrecognized bias or to cause an unexamined assumption to be made. A classic example of one of these starts with “There is a brain surgeon who has 3 sons”, or something like that. At the end of the story the “victim” is asked how many men there are in the story. Then the trap is revealed: the surgeon was a woman! A natural bias had been exploited to mislead.
DeleteThe 2 elements of a brain teaser that reminded me of my thought-journey are that 1) there is an unexamined assumption or bias, and then there is 2) an Aha moment when the incorrect assumption is unearthed. Suddenly everything falls into place.
The thing I had to give up was a bit of old mental conditioning. You saw that from the beginning I was always discussing this as a subjective value adherent, so my trouble didn’t come from there.
Whenever you said something like ‘A dollar is an objective measure’ or ‘A dollar is a yardstick’ I found myself somewhat unconsciously putting in the words ‘of value’ at the end. You said yardstick, I said yardstick of value. Even after I was very conscious that you were deliberately not using the term value, still the phrase kept creeping back into the sentences I typed back to you. You say OBJECTIVE MEASURE. I say OF VALUE! I couldn’t help myself.
In the end I was very surprised that I still had this piece of mental conditioning ‘installed’ - A knee-jerk response. (Thanks, Dr. North!)
Once I did get past my mental block, everything fell directly into place. Of course the dollar is objective. Of course it is an objective measure. At this point I answered the question I had raised to you: What does a dollar measure? My answer (which may not be complete, but is correct) is ‘prices’. I see you used the term ‘transactions’ in another thread. I think either answer gets at the heart of it.
In Defense of “Goldbugs”
DeleteI know where my mental conditioning came from exactly. Imagine a lowly goldbug in the year 2000. Gold had made a new low, and in fact had been in a bear market for 20 YEARS! Yet we saw gold as a viable asset class, and of course in the end we were correct. But the years were very painful. We were alternately vilified and ridiculed. So what did we do? We hung out together on bulletin boards drawing strength from one another. Every other day someone who thought we were insane would stop by the BB to taunt us and tell us we were cavemen.
So we hung together, became rather distrustful and defensive towards those who came around to ridicule us for believing in a barbarous relic. And we exchanged conventional wisdoms with each other.
I will leave you with just a few of these wisdoms, though I could recite a great many more. Over time these get installed in your gut, and are very difficult to displace. It requires some effort.
"Since 1913 the US dollar has lost 98% of its value."
"The dollar has no intrinsic value, but gold and silver do have intrinsic value."
“A dollar isn’t worth the paper it is printed on.”
“Gold doesn’t have a price. Its value never changes – only everything else changes value as measured in gold.”
Sound familiar?
Gpond
DeleteYour posts are a real delight for me to read. I thank you for sharing these. I will comment on some of your points from the various posts:
“Professor B from CA sometimes says that gold is the only substance(?) or commodity that has no price because all other goods are valued in gold, or something like that. I'm trying to understand when you say that a dollar is an objective unit of measurement do you have something similar to this in mind?”
It is similar (a dollar is always a dollar – exactly), with two main differences: 1) he keeps saying it about gold as if it is true today. It isn’t, unless he exists in a gold-based economy, and 2) (I will get to in a moment)….
I give B credit – it was through a dialogue with him that I fully (to the extent “fully” applies to our learning) grasped the difference of unit of standard (or measure) and unit of value. The difference is he seems to see value as objective while I see it as subjective.
“But I think of Professor B and hundreds like him that believe that only gold (or silver) are objective measures of value and all else fluctuates, but not the one true thing.”
And 2) B sees this and more: he additionally has some idea that the value of labor it took to extract the gold is somehow held in the gold (although he recently seems to have waffled on this a bit). This part I just don’t get. But others, like a couple of commenters at DB in the subject thread, see it as an objective unit not only of value (not possible), but a unit of measure – it can only be a unit of measure in an economy that uses it as a unit of measure. Here, Dr. North’s example of when gold fell from $1100 to $700 in 2008, yet general prices in dollars didn’t react in the opposite direction, really hit home.
“From your vantage point some escalators seem to be going up, some seem to be going up really fast, others seem to be going down at different rates of speed. But you have no absolute reference to really know.”
This comment I fully agree with – I just felt at the time you wrote it that we weren’t yet communicating effectively with each other, so I couldn’t address it effectively.
“You said yardstick, I said yardstick of value.”
This is what I suspected for the others at DB as well. But one of the participants started in with vulgarities early on, and the other stayed in his camp of not being able to separate the two. I try not to assume, though, in such a dialogue.
“I will leave you with just a few of these wisdoms…”
I truly think these are all valuable as they paint a great picture and capture the attention – they are eye-opening statements for the uninitiated; those who a) have not considered issues about fiat money, and b) have an open mind to explore. But as to satisfying economic principles, they mostly mislead.
Again, I thank you for the dialogue.
I should clarify:
Delete“You said yardstick, I said yardstick of value.”
This is what I suspected for the others at DB as well.
I recognize you meant that there is no such thing as an objective measure of value - not even gold can be objectively measured (except against itself, as any monetary unit of measure must be). For the two at DB, this was what they were defending.
gpond, you will love this:
Deletehttp://www.thedailybell.com/28664/Let-the-Elites-Have-Their-Silly-Gold-and-Silver--Use-Local-Money-to-Create-Sustainable-Economies
Check the comments section....
Purchasing Power vs. Value
DeleteSometimes I think that when some are arguing about the ‘value’ of gold, or the ‘value’ of a dollar that what they really have in mind is purchasing power. Certainly there are some that believe in the ‘preciousness infinite value’ intrinsic to gold. I refer to that as religion and not much can be done there. However, others striving to understand statements such as ‘all value is subjective’ are simply not understanding the difference between ‘value’, especially in the Austrian sense, and ‘purchasing power’.
Value is subjective. However purchasing power seems to be an empirical matter. Purchasing power is measurable either against a single good or a basket of goods. Naturally, no one method of measuring would be without problems, and yet it can be measured.
Sometimes when goldbugs say value, what they mean is purchasing power. Other times not. When the non-religious goldbug says value but means purchasing power, he probably thinks the other member of the conversation means that as well. What do you think?
I will attempt to translate a few ‘conventional wisdom’ statements into statements about purchasing power, and judge if they hold up.
"Since 1913 the US dollar has lost 98% of its purchasing power."
This is empirical and can be measured. The measurement method is not specified, and there could be alternate schemes of measurement, but at least it is measurable. It becomes much less controversial because we are no longer arguing about subjective value.
"The dollar has no intrinsic purchasing power, but gold and silver do have intrinsic purchasing power."
False! There is no such thing as intrinsic purchasing power any more than there exists intrinsic value. A simple religious statement.
“A dollar doesn’t have the purchasing power of the purchasing power of the paper it is printed on.”
This statement has now become more obviously false than it was in it’s original form. At least we have come closer to clarity in this case.
“Gold doesn’t have a price. Its purchasing power never changes – only everything else changes purchasing power as measured in gold.”
Wow. I didn’t expect that. The statement is now obviously self-contradictory. Is this a fair translation?
“The quality, so preciousness, so infinite purchasing power of gold does not change whether it circulates or not.”
No help there. Religion category.
It seems to me that there is a subset of propositions regarding value that can be elucidated (and even rescued) by inviting the proposer to re-phrase the statement from ‘value’ to ‘purchasing power’ and see if the statement makes sense.
What do you think, BM? Goldbugs. Ya gotta love ‘em.
I think this is a good exercise to help flush out the economic sense of the statement. I generally agree with your conclusions (including regarding the statements that seem to border on religious fanaticism).
DeleteI will comment on one of your restatements:
“Gold doesn’t have a price. Its purchasing power never changes – only everything else changes purchasing power as measured in gold.”
I think it is fair to say gold doesn’t have a price and its price never changes *IF* gold is also the unit of measure – it is what everything else is priced in: ten grams of gold will always price out as ten grams of gold. In today’s United States, it is fair to say the dollar doesn’t have a price as it is the unit of measure: one dollar will always price out at one dollar.
Now, this isn’t to say that gold (or a dollar) cannot be “priced” in the terms of some other commodity – One dollar prices as 0.75 Euros, for example, or one ounce of gold prices as 18 barrels of oil. But this leads to the clumsiness of having no benchmark – no yardstick or standard for measurement. No unit of account for economic calculation, and not much different than barter.
This is what I tried to get at with my idea of the reply by the shopkeeper to the question of “How Much for the candy bar?” The currency unit in which he replies is the unit of measure. It HAS no price; it is used to identify the price.
"Now, this isn’t to say that gold (or a dollar) cannot be “priced” in the terms of some other commodity – One dollar prices as 0.75 Euros, for example, or one ounce of gold prices as 18 barrels of oil. But this leads to the clumsiness of having no benchmark – no yardstick or standard for measurement. No unit of account for economic calculation, and not much different than barter."
DeleteAny commodity can ALWAYS be *priced* in any other commodity. This doesn't mean we have no benchmark. It doesn't mean we have to revert to barter. The price of a currency unit is always the inverse of what it will purchase.
You are correct. I was writing in the context of having no yardstick - all prices move against the other without a benchmark.
DeleteIt seems quite natural and likely that individuals, left free, would develop and agree to a yardstick. The market, striving for efficiency as free markets naturally do, would drive this.
Thanks. Yes, we are agreeing.
DeleteHere is an interesting article that has some applicability to what we have been discussing.
Especially see the part starting with this question in the interview:
"L.S.: How does that apply to the gold market?"
I like this guy's analysis very much.
http://goldswitzerland.com/what-is-key-for-the-price-formation-of-gold/print/
I also saw and appreciated this article. I will suggest the answer to the question: "A controversial topic within both the gold community and the anti-gold crowd is whether gold is money. What is your view on that?"
DeleteThe section you pointed me to is better than the section I pointed you to.
DeleteI agree with Blumen that gold is not currently money. What is somewhat comical is that the BB I used to inhabit was called GoldIsMoney.
Thanks again for your time. This exchange has been very rewarding for me.
I, too, appreciated this conversation. Thank you.
DeleteI posted the following at DB in furtherance of this conversation (in two parts):
ReplyDelete-----
DB, thank you for your patience with this conversation….
DR: One unit of measure of monetary value is the dollar. In order to actually measure value the unit of measure must possess value.
BM: Value cannot be measured, unless you have a solution to the problem I posed earlier. As no one on earth has solved this problem (most economists won’t even admit it is a problem; if they did, they would have to admit that macro-economics is quackery), I don’t suspect you will.
BTW, in the problem I offered, replace $1 with 1 gram of gold. I will suggest that the answer to my question is no more easily obtainable using gold than using a fiat currency.
DR: Whether economics is a physical science or not it is a field of knowledge that follows rules and requires that these rules be consistent otherwise such knowledge it would be of no practical use.
BM: Economics has rules, just don’t expect that they will be as quantitative as you might like.
DR: One of these rules is surely the definition of the means used to measure the productivity of an economy.
BM: whether the productivity of an economy can be measured or not is not terribly important to the two people in the shop transacting for the candy bar. The thing which you want to measure is not measureable – unless you have solved the question that I posed earlier.
DR: [Measuring the productivity of the economy] is the role of the unit of measure of value, the unit of account.
BM: are you suggesting that the reason a unit of measure (or account) was developed was to satisfy the macro-economist’s desire to measure the economy? I will suggest you are mistaken. I asked before, I will ask again: go to a shop and ask the shopkeeper “How much?” while holding up a candy bar. He would have no way to respond without stating it in some unit of measure or account.
Additionally, economic calculation for the entrepreneur is not possible without utilizing a unit of measure (or account). Not a trivial need, I will suggest, and a far more pressing need than that of “measuring the productivity of the economy.”
DR: To use a unit of measure that has no value and one which is created by a central authority….
ReplyDeleteBM: I have suspected from the beginning of this dialogue that you are struggling mightily with the words I have typed because you believe that I am an advocate of fiat over gold or free market derived money. This statement confirms my suspicion. You are incorrect in this assumption.
DR: …would ensure that the value of the goods and services being measured could not be measured with confidence…
BM: There is no need to measure with confidence. There is a need to have free market price discovery. This means free market in product and free market in money and credit (but I repeat myself).
DR: If nothing has intrinsic value then the notion of value has no meaning.
BM: Wrong on two counts: 1) if nothing has intrinsic value then the notion of *intrinsic value* has no meaning, 2) the notion of value *does* have meaning, it just isn’t quantifiable – unless you are the first in the world to solve the problem I posed earlier (in dollars, pounds, gold grams, or whatever).
DR: If gold has intrinsic properties that make it valuable that means it has intrinsic value.
BM: No, it means it has intrinsic properties that make it valuable. Value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
DR: While it is true that the value of anything may be subjective it does not exclude the fact that when an exchange takes place there are two parties to the exchange and each has agreed subjectively on the value of the good or service being exchanged. This creates an objective value for that good or service that is fixed at the time of the transaction.
BM: It does not create an objective value; it creates an objective price for that specific transaction. Go back to the question I asked earlier. Do you disagree with the premise that the shopkeeper values the dollar more than he does the candy bar, and the customer values the candy bar more than he does the dollar? If so, please explain why they make the trade.
DR: We must not on that account [the failure to faithfully observe the Law of Honest Weights and Measures] adopt this as the standard by which we determine what a monetary system should be.
BM: another example of your faulty assumption regarding my views of today’s monetary system as opposed to gold or a free money system.
Thanks for this article. I had been having a discussion with some Libertarians about this and it seems you think the same as me. Ultimately it boils down to these domain owners violating (breach?) a contract that they voluntarily signed and now don't want to play by the rules. It seems a different discussion if those rules are "good" or "valid" or not from a Libertarian (or any) perspective.
ReplyDeleteWell done!
-Mike (in Tokyo) Rogers