pull down to refresh
30 sats \ 1 reply \ @xz 1 Aug \ parent \ on: 400 Ph.D. Economists vs. One Shiny Rock econ
I can't say I'm read up on Rothbard. From first glance seems the theory has some debate with non-physical assets? Or you'd say otherwise? I'd imagine like most theories, they are subject to revision in their original premise as new challenges to them arise.
But they try pretty damn hard. Thinking back on global history and the relative peaceful, or at least semi-stable state of affairs from the later 20th to the early 21st century, there was a brief period moment where the global broken money system at least functioned.
I guess regression theorem is what is said by 'intrinsic value'? Seems subjective in some sense. I was just reading about some tech company financing its balance sheet through purchases of Nvidia GPUs, and the discussion was based around them losing there value over time. Sometimes commodity financing at least seems to make more sense than paper valuations.
The regression theorem was created/discovered by Mises to explain the origin of money. It regresses from yesterday’s value of money back to the first time money was made to have a value. He said that money got its value from the last time barter that goods were traded for goods and the most valuable good became money.
The value of money is always and everywhere subjective. It depends on what you think is more valuable, the money you earned or the good or service you desire. Then, you will only buy when you think the money is worth less than the thing you want to buy. Then and only then will you buy. Never when you think the money and the good are the same value. It is all subjective and depending on you at the time you make the decision.
reply