value is backed in real labor and money is a measure of value
Only if the value of money was derived that way, but it in reality, it isn't.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
value is backed in real labor and money is a measure of value
Only if the value of money was derived that way, but it in reality, it isn't.
Money is a store of value m8. You need something to measure value in to trade objects effectively
Money as a store of value is the opposite as money as a medium of exchange (trade objects effectively). They are opposing forces, and one of the main drivers of capitalism...
There are at least 9 other highly viable forms of capital as stores of value, outside of money.
"Money as a store of value is the opposite as money as a medium of exchange "
last I checked to be a good medium of exchange it has to be considered a measurement of value
Measurement != store.
You can measure and exchange value with money (in fact that was the main purpose of money, to begin with) it wasn't until later (with gold, etc) that money evolved to being a store of value... It evolved further to be able to seek economic rents (interest) of that value as well. All of these are in addition to, the medium of exchange. They are separate functions, not inherent.
"A store of value is the function of an asset that can be saved, retrieved and exchanged at a later time, and be predictably useful when retrieved."
"The most common store of value in modern times has been money, currency, or a commodity like a precious metal, cryptocurrency or financial capital. The point of any store of value is risk management due to a stable demand for the underlying asset. Money is one of the best stores of value because of its liquidity, that is, it can easily be exchanged for other goods and services.[1] An individual's wealth is the total of all stores of value including both monetary and nonmonetary assets.[2]"
Time = money - which is your labour; I get what you are saying - how to apportion value to something you can't see or touch? That's why I think the cryptos that retain value will be the ones that do something tangible.....provide a service, etc. and have differentiation.....Ripple is being investigated for adoption by the banking sector; Dash is an Apple pick; Lisk provides a service and enables the functionality of further cryptos, etc. Ultimately, cryptos that survive will have to have functionality, otherwise why bother?? And I get what you are saying about the measure - that's why I think eventually, crypto might resurrect the gold standard as a measure of value....as opposed to the value of a service....Bitcoin is valuable for what it allows - the digital exchange, but also the brand has established trust.
what? That makes no sense.
Labor is the only real measure of value is what I'm saying.
From my economics text book (coauthored by Ben Bernanke):
"Store of Value
As a store of value, money is a way of holding wealth. An extreme example is a miser who keeps his life's savings in cash under his mattress. But even someone who spends his cash wages 15 minutes after is using money as a store of value for that short period.
In most cases only money functions as a medium of exchange or a unit of account, but any asset-for example, stocks, bonds, or real estate- can be a store of value. AS these other types of assets normally pay the holder a higher return than money does, why do people use more as a store of value? The answer is that money's usefulness as a medium of exchange makes it worthwhile to hold, even though its return is relatively low."