Guy on Nostr: This is going to be so 2023, sharing my conversation with an LLM. The follow-up is an ...
This is going to be so 2023, sharing my conversation with an LLM. The follow-up is an important point, I think.
I said "Bravo. But Ludwig von Mises points out that the commonly quoted "store of value" function of money is superfluous. Store of value is already present in medium of exchange. In order to use a medium of exchange, there must be one exchange followed by the passage of time followed by another exchange. In order for the medium of exchange to work as one would expect, the medium must be valuable at the moment of the earlier exchange and at the moment of the latter exchange. Thus, to say "store of value" is unnecessary and distracting. Money is simply a medium of exchange, right?"
Answered dolphin-mixtral dutifully:
> You're correct that Ludwig von Mises argued that the "store of value" function of money is superfluous when you consider that a medium of exchange must already possess this property to be effective. The reasoning behind this is that for money to serve as a medium of exchange, it must hold its value over time between transactions. If people were unable to reliably use their money in the future, they would not accept it as payment, rendering it an ineffective medium of exchange.
>
> So yes, while money does indeed have a "store of value" function, this can be seen more as a necessary consequence of its role as a medium of exchange rather than a distinct function. In summary, according to Mises' viewpoint, money is primarily a medium of exchange that inherently possesses the property of being a store of value.
I said "Bravo. But Ludwig von Mises points out that the commonly quoted "store of value" function of money is superfluous. Store of value is already present in medium of exchange. In order to use a medium of exchange, there must be one exchange followed by the passage of time followed by another exchange. In order for the medium of exchange to work as one would expect, the medium must be valuable at the moment of the earlier exchange and at the moment of the latter exchange. Thus, to say "store of value" is unnecessary and distracting. Money is simply a medium of exchange, right?"
Answered dolphin-mixtral dutifully:
> You're correct that Ludwig von Mises argued that the "store of value" function of money is superfluous when you consider that a medium of exchange must already possess this property to be effective. The reasoning behind this is that for money to serve as a medium of exchange, it must hold its value over time between transactions. If people were unable to reliably use their money in the future, they would not accept it as payment, rendering it an ineffective medium of exchange.
>
> So yes, while money does indeed have a "store of value" function, this can be seen more as a necessary consequence of its role as a medium of exchange rather than a distinct function. In summary, according to Mises' viewpoint, money is primarily a medium of exchange that inherently possesses the property of being a store of value.