dikaios1517 on Nostr: Yeah, that doesn't fit with Mises Regression Theorem either. A commodity cannot ...
Yeah, that doesn't fit with Mises Regression Theorem either. A commodity cannot borrow value from another commodity. You are essentially saying, "Bitcoin can't be considered money unless we all agree that it is digital money instead of physical money. It's pre-existing value is derived from physical money."
That's still just saying that we must agree that it has value as money before it can have value as money. That is NOT what Mises was saying. Mises held it needed to have value for some reason OTHER than being money. Such as gold being considered valuable as ornamentation, since it was aesthetically pleasing, never rusted or corroded, and could be relatively easily worked into intricate shapes, due to how soft it is compared to other metals.
Bitcoin doesn't have anything like this. Instead, Bitcoin was designed with the intention of having all the properties that make money valuable as money, and without any intent to have another utility outside of money underlying it. It was DESIGNED to be money, based on what we know makes a good money by observing other things that have been used as money, and then importing those properties into the digital sphere, to make the ideal money for the digital age.
Mises was wrong. A commodity didn't need to have a utility value outside of being used as money first. It's just that there was nothing that had been used as money before being used for another purpose first up to that point. Man had never had the ability to design, from the ground up, a money specifically for the purpose of being money. We had to use what was available to us in nature, perhaps with some modifications, which means it likely had some other use-case we had found for it first, and only later discovered that it would make an adequate form of money.
Bitcoin is entirely different, and I believe has proven Mises wrong on that point.
Bitcoin was designed and gained value as money FIRST, and only after that have people tried to use it for other purposes outside of money, which has actually hurt its value as money.
That's still just saying that we must agree that it has value as money before it can have value as money. That is NOT what Mises was saying. Mises held it needed to have value for some reason OTHER than being money. Such as gold being considered valuable as ornamentation, since it was aesthetically pleasing, never rusted or corroded, and could be relatively easily worked into intricate shapes, due to how soft it is compared to other metals.
Bitcoin doesn't have anything like this. Instead, Bitcoin was designed with the intention of having all the properties that make money valuable as money, and without any intent to have another utility outside of money underlying it. It was DESIGNED to be money, based on what we know makes a good money by observing other things that have been used as money, and then importing those properties into the digital sphere, to make the ideal money for the digital age.
Mises was wrong. A commodity didn't need to have a utility value outside of being used as money first. It's just that there was nothing that had been used as money before being used for another purpose first up to that point. Man had never had the ability to design, from the ground up, a money specifically for the purpose of being money. We had to use what was available to us in nature, perhaps with some modifications, which means it likely had some other use-case we had found for it first, and only later discovered that it would make an adequate form of money.
Bitcoin is entirely different, and I believe has proven Mises wrong on that point.
Bitcoin was designed and gained value as money FIRST, and only after that have people tried to use it for other purposes outside of money, which has actually hurt its value as money.