pull down to refresh
35 sats \ 13 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 6 Feb \ parent \ on: Josh doesn't know where Bitcoin gets its value bitcoin
Gold is widely used in tech industry. Doesn't that make it intrinsically valuable?
The "gold has productive value" idea doesn't solve the Regression problem anyway, since production has no value in the last period. Heck, not even food would have value as everything ends anyway. Maybe the only thing that would have value in the last period is things that give pleasure.
But, all that to say, I don't think the Regression Theorem has much explanatory power for anything outside of very specific strategic scenarios, like a board game.
reply
Yes, and my sense is that Josh would agree with you. From his replies to folks, it looks like he finds the regression theorem a little silly.
The main points of his argument are:
-
people only really want things that are an end in themselves.
-
things that are a means to an end still need to have some aspect in which they are an end.
-
what is bitcoin's end?
reply
The second point is the silly one and the third point makes sense after realizing that.
There are any number of factors of production that nobody wants for any reason other than they are a means to a desired end.
Do people just love talking to lawyers? Or, do they pay heavily to do so in order to reach a desired end?
reply
Perhaps I have oversimplified his second point.
People probably don't just enjoy holding dollars. They like what dollars can get them. In that sense dollars are just a means.
However, there are also some things only dollars can get you (you can only pay US tax obligations in dollars).
So dollars have an end for Josh.
Lawyers may be a means to a lot of things, but there are some things you can only get if you hire them.
I have a feeling Josh does not count bitcoin's censorship resistance as an end.
reply
I think you have this correct too: you can only use the bitcoin ledger if you own bitcoin.
Therefor, bitcoin is an indispensable means to a valued end.
reply
After listening to Bob Murphy's explanation, the Regression Theorem is conceptually useful, but practically it has almost no teeth.
reply
No, that just pushes the analysis back a step. The technology it's used in is also only valued subjectively.
reply
According to you, the only intrinsically valuable things are food, drink and shelter?
reply
No, those are also subjectively valuable. All values are subjective (based in a self), rather than objective (based in external reality).
Food, water, and shelter are only valuable because there are people who value them.
reply
You're not saying that there are people who don't attach any value to these 3 things, are you? Or are you just saying that different people value them differently?
reply
There are people who don't value life at all. Value is purely a function of human psychology, which is what it means to be subjective: it's rooted in the subject, rather than the object.
reply
No. Just that we don't how how much any one person values any particular thing. So there's no such thing as a value something has in and of itself.
People give value to things by wanting them and being willing to do something about it.
reply