Topic: Mises regression theorem is inconsistent - page 3. (Read 9401 times)
Interesting ideas being floated here, just going to follow this thread.
Cost does not create value. Cost is paid because value is expected.
Yes, but anchoring BC in scarce physical goods like energy and processors did create scarcity and a frame of reference (ie everyone knows there own price in other stuff for the cost they paid for them and it can set a lower limit anyone will be willing to do the initial barter at).
That is just wrong. The ashes of a $20 bill don't have $20 as a lower limit to value.
There is a place where this has been discused already: http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=583.0
Dont start new threads, use the old one.
Dont start new threads, use the old one.
Cost does not create value. Cost is paid because value is expected.
Yes, but anchoring BC in scarce physical goods like energy and processors did create scarcity and a frame of reference (ie everyone knows there own price in other stuff for the cost they paid for them and it can set a lower limit anyone will be willing to do the initial barter at).
No don't think it violate the Mises regression theorem, it is just that it evolved incredibly fast so the first stages where barely noticeable.
BitCoin was not actually created as a money, but a scarce virtual good that can be owned anonymously. The first transactions with BitCoin would have been barter and not indirect exchanges. People mined some coin and used it to barter to something else, and only gradually there are more and more indirect exchanges where BitCoin is a money taking place.
The fact that a owner of a unit of BitCoin good can not be directly identified and that it is virtual add tremendous utility value to BitCoin. Also a bit of the initial value can be derived from the nuseanse and cost of creating it. Mises theorem is simply and understandably just not adapted to a virtual economy so it is difficult to see, but there is utility value in BitCoin that is not purely monetary. It don't think Mises ever claimed something first have to be used in heavy industry, gold didn't have any industrial value before it was used as money. It was just pretty to make ornaments from and scarce. With BitCoin instead of wanting shiny things to give the money initial value people wanted something which is virtual and who's owner is very difficult to identify...
BitCoin was not actually created as a money, but a scarce virtual good that can be owned anonymously. The first transactions with BitCoin would have been barter and not indirect exchanges. People mined some coin and used it to barter to something else, and only gradually there are more and more indirect exchanges where BitCoin is a money taking place.
The fact that a owner of a unit of BitCoin good can not be directly identified and that it is virtual add tremendous utility value to BitCoin. Also a bit of the initial value can be derived from the nuseanse and cost of creating it. Mises theorem is simply and understandably just not adapted to a virtual economy so it is difficult to see, but there is utility value in BitCoin that is not purely monetary. It don't think Mises ever claimed something first have to be used in heavy industry, gold didn't have any industrial value before it was used as money. It was just pretty to make ornaments from and scarce. With BitCoin instead of wanting shiny things to give the money initial value people wanted something which is virtual and who's owner is very difficult to identify...
Cost does not create value. Cost is paid because value is expected.
No don't think it violate the Mises regression theorem, it is just that it evolved incredibly fast so the first stages where barely noticeable.
BitCoin was not actually created as a money, but a scarce virtual good that can be owned anonymously. The first transactions with BitCoin would have been barter and not indirect exchanges. People mined some coin and used it to barter to something else, and only gradually there are more and more indirect exchanges where BitCoin is a money taking place.
The fact that a owner of a unit of BitCoin good can not be directly identified and that it is virtual add tremendous utility value to BitCoin. Also a bit of the initial value can be derived from the nuseanse and cost of creating it. Mises theorem is simply and understandably just not adapted to a virtual economy so it is difficult to see, but there is utility value in BitCoin that is not purely monetary. It don't think Mises ever claimed something first have to be used in heavy industry, gold didn't have any industrial value before it was used as money. It was just pretty to make ornaments from and scarce. With BitCoin instead of wanting shiny things to give the money initial value people wanted something which is virtual and who's owner is very difficult to identify...
BitCoin was not actually created as a money, but a scarce virtual good that can be owned anonymously. The first transactions with BitCoin would have been barter and not indirect exchanges. People mined some coin and used it to barter to something else, and only gradually there are more and more indirect exchanges where BitCoin is a money taking place.
The fact that a owner of a unit of BitCoin good can not be directly identified and that it is virtual add tremendous utility value to BitCoin. Also a bit of the initial value can be derived from the nuseanse and cost of creating it. Mises theorem is simply and understandably just not adapted to a virtual economy so it is difficult to see, but there is utility value in BitCoin that is not purely monetary. It don't think Mises ever claimed something first have to be used in heavy industry, gold didn't have any industrial value before it was used as money. It was just pretty to make ornaments from and scarce. With BitCoin instead of wanting shiny things to give the money initial value people wanted something which is virtual and who's owner is very difficult to identify...
Hello,
I´ve been thinking a lot about this. I think I know very well the regression theorem of money from Mises and certainly BitCoins violate this theorem.
The issue here is that I don´t think that the regression theorem of money is necessary to explain why currencies come to existence. It´s not true that currencies need previous industrial utility to become currencies. Credit has been used as currency for a long time and it has no industrial utility.
I´ve written a brief post about this on my blog, please visit if you are interested.
http://eleconomistaprudente.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/bitcoins-and-mises%C2%B4s-regression-theorem/
P.D. Nevertheless, it wouldn´t hurt at all for BitCoins to have a non-monetary use. Maybe some cryptographic application as unique tokens?
I´ve been thinking a lot about this. I think I know very well the regression theorem of money from Mises and certainly BitCoins violate this theorem.
The issue here is that I don´t think that the regression theorem of money is necessary to explain why currencies come to existence. It´s not true that currencies need previous industrial utility to become currencies. Credit has been used as currency for a long time and it has no industrial utility.
I´ve written a brief post about this on my blog, please visit if you are interested.
http://eleconomistaprudente.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/bitcoins-and-mises%C2%B4s-regression-theorem/
P.D. Nevertheless, it wouldn´t hurt at all for BitCoins to have a non-monetary use. Maybe some cryptographic application as unique tokens?
Jump to: