🚀 go-pugleaf

William - what's with your editor? or do you just like the letter "x"?

In article <2401@blue.cis.pitt.edu> wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell) writes:
>
>Two points:
>
>1. Curexxx "Curreny as currency" DOES indeed have value. The extremely
>persistent myth that physical, tangible goods are the only things
>which have the elusive (and quite nebulous) quality of "value" is
>simply false.  It is true that money (currency), such as bills and 
>coindxxx coins have little value if used for things other than
>excvhxxx exchange (although they do have some value in this sense:
>citizens of the Confederacy used to light fires with their paper
>money!), but nothing has "value" outside of the contect ofxxxxxx
>the context of a market.

this makes no sense to me. why does currency have intrinsic value?
all it is is a piece of paper. if it cannot be traded, then it is
useless (except as kindling, as you mention). i think maybe the
definition of "value" is the problem. when i say currency has no
intrinsic value, i mean it is useless *other than* for being traded
for something tangible. if you disagree, please explain why.

as for "nothing has value outside of the context of a market" -- that
is false. a pound of butter has a lot of value to me. so does your
money -- as kindling, or insulation, etc.

>To believe otherwise is to never have
>abxx an answer to the Diamnd-Water Paradox.

you'll have to explain what you mean; how your preceding paragraph
relates to the diamond-water paradox is beyond me.

>2. To some extent, interest rates drive inflation. Yes, money which
>bears interest has some of that value eroded by inflation, but the fact
>is that interest is part of what makes iunfxxx inflation happen.

interest is simply rent for the use of a dollar. if that dollar
will be worth 4 cents less a year from now, then i will include that
amount in the rent i charge. you'll have to explain how it works the
other way around. i don't see it.

--
charles