But I brought it forth to show Szabo's use of the word POTENTIAL (which is bolded in my original writing I believe). Szabo didn't miss this, search for the word "redundancies". He is not stating the formulated value for a network, he is simply saying that metcalfe's law is extendable. It makes perfect sense that a reduction in transport cost as a dramatic effect on the value of the network. But neither metcalfe nor Szabo imply that such efficiency is perfectly transcribable to market cap of a network. That's not either of their mistake, its others' mistake.
Disagree.
Szabo is referring to redundancies that reduce the need for transport between every pair of nodes in the network and thus reducing the exponent to lower than four, but he is still relying on transport costs being the value limitation in the network. He is not recognizing that value is relativistic and the transport costs may not be a significant factor at all in some cases as I pointed out.
You say fungible money. What is un-fungible money? Money becomes money only because of our definition which is somewhat related to "the most fungible good". Otherwise its just barter right?
I don't disagree that money is relating to fungible transfer of utility. The point I am making is that fungible transfer of utility can occur by transferring a fungible intermediate good (i.e. money) or by adding knowledge to an Inverse Commons. The fungible transfer of utility within the Inverse Commons is a shared rise in utility for all participants of the Inverse Commons, i.e. although each unit of knowledge added to the Inverse Commons might be of a different kind (thus non-fungible if were applied to a barter trade between parties), the units of knowledge don't have to be matched to another same kinded unit of knowledge in order to transfer the utility within an Inverse Commons. Given my explanation of how the Internet has raised the degrees-of-freedom of (the nodes which are the individuals in) humanity's access to a plurality of Inverse Commons, there is magnificent increase in the (knowledge) value (and thus utility) that can be fungibly transferred without money (i.e. without a fungible traded intermediate good). Nobody owns the Inverse Commons, because it is open for everyone to see. It gains value the more people contribute to it and the marginal utility of adding more participants doesn't decline precipitously as in other forms of knowledge exchange because it due to the decentralized access control (i.e. everyone can see and fork it without any top-down permission required) there is not the top-down management coordination problem known as the Mythical Man Month. We see that the more degrees-of-freedom an Inverse Commons has for the participants to harmonize their contributions yet not be bound to coordination gridlock, the faster the value grows and the less slowly the marginal utility declines.
Inverse Commons are usually specialized so that only those interested or expert in the subject matter of that particular case of an Inverse Commons, are gaining value from contributing to it, because only they can understand or utilize the increase in shared knowledge in it. Because of this maximum division-of-labor, Inverse Commons can't be entirely captured by finance. Because participants can transact directly and instead via Firms (thus bypassing the Theory of the Firm), it becomes less plausible for finance to gain the economies-of-scale to consolidate everything in corporations and the winner-take-all weakness of fungible finance that I explained upthread is (I posit) ameliorated.
@traincarswreck, your four-color theorem theory of tripartite essential resources for human life is the most basic example of the fact that fungible money increases degrees-of-freedom over barter. The increase in efficiency of fungible money w.r.t. barter, increases as the diversity of physical resources (tangible goods) increases. With three bartered resources and no fungible money, one has a 1/3 chance of holding the resource that another may want to trade for, i.e. being bordered on one of the other two colors in your four color theory. The probability fraction decreases and complexity of risk mitigation increases as the diversity of goods to be bartered increases.
Yes its a generalization. The reason I think it is worth something is that you present it without the four color theorem and we weren't able to proof the theorem without computers. Is a flat plane, and changes to the topology would increase the complexity and possibly outcomes for equilibriums. As does the addition of money as you say.
But we can also think earlier for example in a transition from water to land, or that underwater examples of such relationship between entities, wouldn't have gravity so to speak (or near as much of an effect of it), so the equilibriums form in a different way.
Yet it's conceivable that there is some transition to different orders (ie water to land, land to internet). In this sense money serves as the lubricant for transition, and natural arises as such.
What I want you to see that we don't have to actually individually (selfishly) own the medium where the transfer of fungible value takes place, which is the case with money. This is why the Inverse Commons is new form of fungible utility transfer which ameliorates the monopoly formerly held by money. But the fungibility is not in the form of a barter trade between two owners of the good. If knowledge units were to be traded as barter, they would be non-fungible and thus can't be modeled (nor financed) with the concept of money.
Now I want to suggest, that objective truth, as knowledge, is fungible, and I want to understand what you say to that.
There is no such thing as a grand objective truth. We live in a relativistic universe. There is unbounded diversity of perspectives that can be formed. Humans will tend to cluster around specialties. Within those Inverse Commons of specialized interests and expertise, there will exist fungible value transfer, but there is no overall fungibility. And even within an Inverse Commons, the value that each participant gains from portions of the Inverse Commons will vary.
The idea that there could be one fungible money that accurately reflected all that complexity of value transfer is preposterous. I think this is why Nash was speaking of asymptotic approximation where there would be many stable currencies, but again I have shown upthread that is impossible. I know you will reply and claim I have not, but I simply won't reply any more. I have more important work to do than argue with you about the preposterous notion that there could exist any stable fungible good or goods which could be an accurate value or utility transfer system for all the complexity in nature. Fungible money was something man used which was the best fit for the technology available at the time. We have the Internet now. We are leaving the fungible money era.
