From: Dan Fabulich (daniel.fabulich@yale.edu)
Date: Fri Sep 12 1997 - 06:44:21 MDT
At 01:18 AM 9/12/97 -0500, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
>Currency is a mistake. It results in information loss. On the
>capitalism-communism spectrum, currency is a communist affector relative to
>barter, which is the primeval state of mutually beneficial exchange that
>defines capitalism.
This is interesting; it may even be right. However, I don't think that we
have any choice but to let the market decide here.
Look at it this way: complex barter IS a competing currency. I am prepared
to offer one "trade #52590938423" in exchange for widgets. We find a
series of buyers, all of whom agree that their service/product is worth one
"trade #52590938423." Then we trade, and the currency vanishes.
So how is that any better than if we're bargaining with DanDollars, a unit
of e-currency with a good reputation? Either way you've eliminated the
barriers to entry on creating new economies... So what would make complex
barter so much more compelling or efficient than e-cash?
-SAVE THE WHALES-
-COLLECT THE WHOLE SET-
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:52 MST