51–57 of 57 posts
TL;DR: The article is Too Long; Don't Read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) "The value of a currency is the effort required to obtain it" 2) (Inheritance requires no or marginal effort in acquisition) c) "Inheritance is worthless, then."
Currency value isn't dependent on a single entity's experience or the starving man would set food prices. SMH
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Currency value isn't dependent on a single entity's experience or the starving man would set food prices. SMH
presumably your issue was with the first premise and not the conclusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
presumably your issue was with the first premise and not the conclusion.
That is not presumed. Reappropriating how value and effort are measured is just raising strawmen, as I intimated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not presumed. Reappropriating how value and effort are measured is just raising strawmen, as I intimated.
then your post was purely non-sequitur, as the syllogism's conclusion holds. there was no strawman.
That's projection. No definition was offered and the existing was discounted. Still a strawman. Good luck with whatever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
then your post was purely non-sequitur, as the syllogism's conclusion holds. there was no strawman.
> purely non-sequitur That's projection. No definition was offered and the existing was discounted. Still a strawman. Good luck with whatever.
> The value of a currency is the effort required to obtain it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Value is always personal, relative and variable. The value of things can be expressed in terms of any other thing. Right now, in your situation, would you rather have a coffee or a haircut? Would you rather have 2 coffees or 1 haircut? And so on. There are plenty of exercises to determine how you (personally) value things, and also the shape of your utility curve. That was one of the most interesting classes I ever t…
> When you take in account non-linearity of utility curves, lotteries make sense, for example, since for most people the utility of $1 is far less than 1 millionth of the utility of a million dollars. Can you expand on that? My intuition is telling me that $1 has exactly 1 millionth the utility of a million dollars. I must not understand.
Let's say that you a running a risk of, for whatever reason, having to pay $1M in any given year with a 1 in 1M probability.
Your expected outcome is -$1 per year, which isn't much. So if someone came and offered for you to pay $1 for year for that risk to go away, you'd be indifferent.
But utility isn't linear. Losing $1 wouldn't make a difference in your life, but having to pay $1M would most likely destroy your life financially, leading to significant hardship.
So the cost, to you, of -$1 isn't the same as [1/1M]*-$1M, the latter is much higher. With that in mind, if someone offered you to pay $1 to get rid of the risk, you'd most likely accept.
In a similar way, let's look at the positive side.
Let's say you're broke, you have $0, and I offer you $10 for 1h of your time. Would you accept? Most likely, yes.
Now imagine you had $1M in the bank. Would you still accept $10 for 1h of your time? Probably not. And if you had $10M in the bank, the odds of you accepting would be even smaller.
That's because marginal utility (of pretty much anything) has diminishing returns. The value of a thing to you is different if you have zero of it, or if you have plenty of it.
The result is that even if you think that rationally the value is all the same, it isn't, and you'll actually be valuing things differently. And there's nothing irrational in that.