pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 13 replies \ @fourrules OP 29 Oct \ parent \ on: What bitcoin taught me: Value is not subjective econ
I think there's a reason bitcoin wasn't invented by an economist.
There's also a reason it was invented by people who believed in subjective value theory
reply
No it wasn't, where is the evidence for that?
At most they may have tacitly accepted the dominant modern paradigms.
reply
where is the evidence for that?
For one, it's implied by your assertion that no one agrees with you on this.
For two, they were clearly well versed in the economics of mechanism design.
Also, you don't know that bitcoin wasn't invented by an economist. It seems like you're just more interested in having a disagreement than you are in coming to an understanding.
reply
For one, that's not evidence, only an economist could call it that.
I do know that the vast majority of people who contributed to Bitcoin's emergence from the early 80s were not economists. Nick Szabo, for one, was and is completely ignored in economics. Economics is mostly a scam, and the fundamental ideas they propagate, like revealed preferences, are a scourge used to justify all kinds of abhorrent policies and systems.
Bitcoin exists, as in value systems can be architected and designed, because value is not subjective. If value were fundamentally subjective then designing such a system would have been impossible, none of the subjective incentives could have aggregated into a single stable token system.
I'm not agreeing for the joy of being disagreeable, I'm arguing because you're wrong.
reply
"What is subjective is only the judgment of an individual as to the degree to which something meets these 4 criteria, and their personal priorities if trade offs are required."
Unless you recant that statement, what you're putting forward is a version of subjective value theory, as I told you at the outset. Not acknowledging that is just being disagreeable for the sake of it.
You may think economics is BS and economists are scammers, but Subjective Value Theory is part of our field and I'm telling you how we use the term subjective value. As kepford tried to tell you earlier, what you're doing is insisting on using words differently than how others use them to create the illusion of disagreement.
Maybe entertain the idea that people who have spent centuries thinking this stuff through are prepared for whatever notion just recently popped into your head.
reply
But the 4 criteria are objective. So if you can say without mediation that something meets those criteria then it's not a subjective opinion. You might be wrong, but the truth of the text is beyond your opinion and beyond consensus.
reply
You are still refusing to engage in good faith.
The subjective part is exactly what you described. Each person giving different weight to different things.
That’s how we use the term. Value is set by the subject rather than the object. That insight was an enormous intellectual advance and resolved many unresolved questions in economics.
You should familiarize yourself with the things you’re trying to refute.
reply
You should familiarise yourself with what I wrote instead of trying to take things out of context to build straw men.
The way we determine whether something is or subjective is whether it's mediated by people (authorities) or disintermediated. Mathematics and the scientific method, as well as my direct experience of the world (qualia) are not mediated. There might be something wrong with my filters, but they are my filters, not the construct of Descartes's demon. The academy might facilitate access to information and techniques, but at the end of the day they deal in facts and objective reality. That's why most mathematicians are Platonists.
Economics is nothing like that, it's a social science without any of the rigour of the hard sciences or the depth of mathematics or computer science. Bitcoin was invented by the field of computer science and information theory - we know their names. Economics has been polluted by centuries of powerful politicians, institutions, and ideologies. Its where we get "revealed preferences" and MMT and Malthusianism and Marxism. You think that all of the bad ideas out of economics have been left in the past? No, it's rotten to the core.
If economics had anything to say about bitcoin then all of the early hodlers would be dominated by economists.
The value proposition of bitcoin is not mediated by authorities, it's objectively true. Bitcoiners value bitcoin because it's objectively valuable. Its generated by a level of certainty that doesn't exist in the social sciences.
The truth is that proof of work is why anything produced by human beings is stable, and the description of proof of work is a description of those 4 principles.
reply
You're demonstrating a great deal of ignorance about economics as a field of study.
reply
I've made my point. You just get your sense of identity and worth from shitcoin economics and you don't like it when people tell you it's built on centuries of sand
Don't worry, there will always be a market for bullshit as long as we have politicians and the PR industry.
reply
Got it. You're going to dodge because you have no answer.
reply