Topic: Metarepresented Money - page 2. (Read 2265 times)
Money is just a certificate of value, and there is a consensus for that value among a group of people
So your point being that money as we know it. When looked at as a commodity itself cannot be traded by itself and we need a metamoney which currently does not possess the attributes of money ie it is centralized by banks and other clearhouses.
But a true metamoney should also be decentalized? Ergo cryptos?
Still with current cryptos the issuing of them is imho what keeps them centralized and breaks the closure.
Ie I can produce commodities but not money. therefore money <> commodity
What would you think if money is not social multiequivalent but private multitraded in metamoney. Ie personal money and an excange in metamoney
But a true metamoney should also be decentalized? Ergo cryptos?
Still with current cryptos the issuing of them is imho what keeps them centralized and breaks the closure.
Ie I can produce commodities but not money. therefore money <> commodity
What would you think if money is not social multiequivalent but private multitraded in metamoney. Ie personal money and an excange in metamoney
Centralization is not a design decision more than it is a requirement of the monetary representation, as the article explains. The same goes for decentralization.
So your point being that money as we know it. When looked at as a commodity itself cannot be traded by itself and we need a metamoney which currently does not possess the attributes of money ie it is centralized by banks and other clearhouses.
But a true metamoney should also be decentalized? Ergo cryptos?
Still with current cryptos the issuing of them is imho what keeps them centralized and breaks the closure.
Ie I can produce commodities but not money. therefore money <> commodity
What would you think if money is not social multiequivalent but private multitraded in metamoney. Ie personal money and an excange in metamoney
But a true metamoney should also be decentalized? Ergo cryptos?
Still with current cryptos the issuing of them is imho what keeps them centralized and breaks the closure.
Ie I can produce commodities but not money. therefore money <> commodity
What would you think if money is not social multiequivalent but private multitraded in metamoney. Ie personal money and an excange in metamoney
Still not really clear on it but going over it again. Might be on the wrong track entirely, does this make sense?
Money should only exist as long as someone exchanges something they have for value, once they complete the cycle and exchange that value for something they want that money no longer exists, whoever they received the good/service/item/whatever from has received the value they wanted for it but the value its self cant be exchanged?
Money should only exist as long as someone exchanges something they have for value, once they complete the cycle and exchange that value for something they want that money no longer exists, whoever they received the good/service/item/whatever from has received the value they wanted for it but the value its self cant be exchanged?
The article is not about what money should be: it deals with what money has been, must be, and can be. For the last few thousand years, we have only had privately concrete money (gold, silver, dollars, and so on). Now we have metamoney (cryptocurrencies, like Bitcoin). The article shows the consequences of either in regard to preserving the ownership money rightfully represents.
Money, by definition, must be able to buy something. Once people's money no longer can buy anything, it is no longer money. The article begins with direct commodity exchange to arrive at a concept of money that satisfies this kind of assumption, and then continues from there.
I suggest you read the article sticking to what it says, without speculating about what money should be. If you do that, then you will realize what you describe is not money, but instead is what the article calls "individual multiequivalence."
I think so, been involved in a few of the Keynesian v Austrian discussions lately and the more I look at it the more it seems that's something like arguing the merits of Christianity v Islam and overlooking Creationism v Evolution.
I think the problem here is everyone gets too philosophical and ideological, where if you study economics these things are of little importance
In the modern economy, money mainly exists as data on balance sheets. Think of it as a network of ledgers as opposed to a single global ledger like blockchain. Most of the money created doesn't come from the central bank it comes from commercial banks creating loans. Take housing for example. To buy a house most people use a mortgage. That money comes into existence when the mortgage is created. Then you work and pay off that mortgage. When it's paid off the money disappears and what is left is the house and the interest paid to bank. The economy grows because people want to buy things and in order to buy things they need to engage in economic activity.
Pondering the ideology of money is a dead end exercise. It doesn't tell you why the crash happened in 2008 and what to do about it
Still not really clear on it but going over it again. Might be on the wrong track entirely, does this make sense?
Money should only exist as long as someone exchanges something they have for value, once they complete the cycle and exchange that value for something they want that money no longer exists, whoever they received the good/service/item/whatever from has received the value they wanted for it but the value its self cant be exchanged?
Money should only exist as long as someone exchanges something they have for value, once they complete the cycle and exchange that value for something they want that money no longer exists, whoever they received the good/service/item/whatever from has received the value they wanted for it but the value its self cant be exchanged?
Money exists all the time, that is the point. Someone has it at all times.
Value is individual, and valuables can only be compared to each other. But, many things has somewhat equal value for different people. But you are right: fundamentally, you can say that the value does not move, only the things, including the money. Maybe this wisdom can be used for something.
People think that since money is so important, it has to be complicated. But it isn't, which is also why it has existed in some form from beginning of humanity.
It is just something you buy, although it can not be used for anything, it can only be sold again. Hold on to this when you read the keynesians.
Money has not existed "from beginning of humanity." Our species has existed for hundreds of thousands of years, of which money occupies less than the last ten. Additionally, both have evolved the most just in the last few centuries.
Oversimplifying is at least as dangerous as overcomplicating.
I thought my expression was so simple and clear that I did not want to comment, but with this I did anyway. Must be narcissism.
Watched. Only a little way into it so far but can't help thinking of this:
Quote
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough, Albert Einstein
Maybe it'll all become clear shortly.Please let me know if it does not.
People think that since money is so important, it has to be complicated. But it isn't, which is also why it has existed in some form from beginning of humanity.
It is just something you buy, although it can not be used for anything, it can only be sold again. Hold on to this when you read the keynesians.
Money has not existed "from beginning of humanity." Our species has existed for hundreds of thousands of years, of which money occupies less than the last ten. Additionally, both have evolved the most just in the last few centuries.
Oversimplifying is at least as dangerous as overcomplicating.
https://medium.com/@mideava/metarepresented-money-759cfe446d84
Keeping Ownership Decentralized
Money represents a future commodity ownership. However, the only way of keeping this ownership rightful, hence decentralized, is to price commodities in metarepresented money. Any otherwise priced future ownership will not remain rightfully decentralized. This article explains why, by deriving the concepts, first of generic money, then of privately concrete money, and finally of metarepresented money from direct commodity exchange.
No, it is something you traded something less valuable (in your mind) for, and you speculate that you at some point can trade it for something of value (for you) again.
What you say has three flaws:
1. If what money buys is less valuable than the sum buying it, then the seller is defrauding the buyer.
2. Even if money only were what you say it is, it would still represent a future commodity ownership at least to whom "speculates" it into existence.
3. Despite your "speculative money" being a possible monetary representation, an actual one depends on your being aware that other people have chosen to represent money the same way as you do.
People think that since money is so important, it has to be complicated. But it isn't, which is also why it has existed in some form from beginning of humanity.
It is just something you buy, although it can not be used for anything, it can only be sold again. Hold on to this when you read the keynesians.
https://medium.com/@mideava/metarepresented-money-759cfe446d84
Keeping Ownership Decentralized
Money represents a future commodity ownership. However, the only way of keeping this ownership rightful, hence decentralized, is to price commodities in metarepresented money. Any otherwise priced future ownership will not remain rightfully decentralized. This article explains why, by deriving the concepts, first of generic money, then of privately concrete money, and finally of metarepresented money from direct commodity exchange.
No, it is something you traded something less valuable (in your mind) for, and you speculate that you at some point can trade it for something of value (for you) again.
What you say has three flaws:
1. If what money buys is less valuable than the sum buying it, then the seller is defrauding the buyer.
2. Even if money only were what you say it is, it would still represent a future commodity ownership at least to whom "speculates" it into existence.
3. Despite your "speculative money" being a possible monetary representation, an actual one depends on your being aware that other people have chosen to represent money the same way as you do.
https://medium.com/@mideava/metarepresented-money-759cfe446d84
Keeping Ownership Decentralized
Money represents a future commodity ownership. However, the only way of keeping this ownership rightful, hence decentralized, is to price commodities in metarepresented money. Any otherwise priced future ownership will not remain rightfully decentralized. This article explains why, by deriving the concepts, first of generic money, then of privately concrete money, and finally of metarepresented money from direct commodity exchange.
No, it is something you traded something less valuable (in your mind) for, and you speculate that you at some point can trade it for something of value (for you) again.
https://medium.com/@mideava/metarepresented-money-759cfe446d84
Keeping Ownership Decentralized
Money represents a future commodity ownership. However, the only way of keeping this ownership rightful, hence decentralized, is to price commodities in metarepresented money. Any otherwise priced future ownership will not remain rightfully decentralized. This article explains why, by deriving the concepts, first of generic money, then of privately concrete money, and finally of metarepresented money from direct commodity exchange.
Jump to: