Kevin Hua / Kevin Hua is on Nostr

finding some kind of peace

Last Notes

2024-09-02 14:53:15

- reply

or rather, objective

2024-09-02 14:11:54

Money makes exchange value universal.

2024-09-02 08:29:55

I'm now more inclined to think that bitcoin does have use-value. Given that store of value is usually, but not necessarily, the function of money, it is a direct use, especially when the money we use today does not have that function. Being a good that is suitable for storing wealth presupposes the fact that it is not liable to change. And unlike any other goods in which use-value is predominant, add more unit of it will not make us better off. So in my view bitcoin will emerge as money (commonly used medium of exchange) just like any of its predecessors before. It will emerge as money based on its direct use (i.e., store of value).
Money has value because it can be used in an exchange. In a barter economy, people exchange their goods for certain good because they either (1) want to consume that good directly, or (2) by taking that good they are closer to their goals of obtaining the goods they want to consume directly. People engage in an exchange because they expect to benefit from it. In other words, the good people take has higher salability. In ancient times, cattle had high salability and therefore was used as money because people want it (use-value) and it's durable and not costly to maintain. But over time, with the development of industry, metallic money took its place, and cattle lost its salability drastically. Metal became money because it was useful and people wanted it. From this we can see that salability is subjective and therefore liable to change. The salability of a good is limited by the persons, area and time to which it can be sold, it is also limited by the demand for it. In the case of bitcoin, it pretty much maxes out in all of those criteria.
In short, money emerge because people want it and it's useful, and holding it make them closer to the goods they directly consume.

2024-09-01 05:13:24

- reply

Of course it's not an overnight change, but we need to put someone like Milei in office.

2024-08-31 11:46:19

- reply

Why not just abolish the state? I really doubt the idea that technology per se can lead to liberty, we've been saying that for decades since the internet came out. I just don't think "hide and seek" is the way forward.

2024-08-30 03:29:34

Lag fyrir __
https://m.primal.net/KUbj.mp4

2024-08-29 02:09:52

- reply

You are definitely a lot more well read than I am. I only do economics, what do I know, so there's that. I won't be easy on you tho, that's for sure.

2024-08-29 01:47:27

- reply

Right off you do realize oxygen is a non-economic good, therefore it does not have any value, right? So it appears to me as a absurd analogy from the outset. But I will dig into it for sure.

2024-08-29 01:35:40

Maybe those on the left tend to think if we get rid of the money printer, the govt can operate more “honestly ”, whatever that means. They see money printer as the root cause of our problems, but I would argue that money printer is the apparatus that exacerbates our problems, the root problems lie in the govt itself. The problem with socialism is that there’s no price for the means of production, but there are prices for the consumer good. With bureaucracy, the problem is the opposite, as we have prices for the means of production, but we don’t have prices for consumer good (education, healthcare, etc). Hence the famous saying ”The government offers them for FREE”
So I would say the same economic calculation problem is just as applicable as is the case with socialism. That’s why for classical liberals like Mises, the realm within which govt operates should be limited to law, defense and other goods that he thinks free market cannot offer. And for libertarians like Rothbard, he thinks there’s no exception for which free market fails to provide. But either way, they all agree that govt should be shrunk as much as possible, so that the “ocean of calculation chaos” can be minimized as much as possible.

2024-08-28 09:43:59

For anyone to be a seller, it is necessary that his valuation (reserve demand) be lower than any buyer (use demand). Otherwise he would not be a seller at all. Therefore the formation of price does not lie between sellers and buyers, but rather lies in between the least eager buyer and most eager potential buyer(the one being excluded), in other words, it lies in between the marginal buyers.

2024-08-28 02:57:24

- reply

Exactly sir!
#note1xza…lq5l

2024-08-28 01:34:56

- reply

It seems to me that commies understanding of economics still remains at a very primitive level. Marx wrote Das Kapital during the marginal revolution and he never seemed to quite grasp it, his critique of capitalism was still based on the classical/ Ricardian framwork.
I would say the reason why communism won't work really comes down to economic calculation, and coercion being the offshoot of the incentive problem, which can be solved in a compulsive and coercive way. But the ECP can never be solved by AI or big data or any technology, however advanced. For prices cannot emerge via any equation, the price of a good is based on the subjective valuation of both parties, and this presupposes private ownership in not just the MoP but consumer goods as well. Higher Q lower P or lower Q higher p, this relationship between P and Q is in no way linear, it's in no way pre-existed. It's solely based on the subjective valuation of both parties. It can very well be the case that when we cut the price in half, the quantity demanded does not simply double. For the marginal utility of a good does not diminish in an exactly inverse proportion. The seller must set the price at the most profitable level, and he can only do that with the apparatus of economic calculation. It is precisely the fact that there are so many ways to make the same good that we need economic calculation to find out which way is the most profitable, and whether there are any more valuable uses for the MoP remain unsatisfied and unrealized.
The failure to grasp this leads to production chaos. As per Mises "we have a socialist community which must cross the whole ocean of possible and imaginable economic permutations without the compass of economic calculation.
All economic change, therefore, would involve operations the
value of which could neither be predicted beforehand nor ascertained after they had taken place. Everything would be a leap in the dark. Socialism is the renunciation of rational economy."
Socialism, Mises, p.122.

2024-08-27 14:41:19

The world needs economic literacy.

2024-08-26 02:04:46

Ending the Fed with the Great Ron Paul at MisesU
https://image.nostr.build/28fb3759b256e1b0f1315b9d0456203a84458c4e88231c0f821cca657462cc48.jpg

2023-09-07 15:48:47

- reply

Watching smoking fetish porns

2023-08-04 04:18:16

- reply

I would say it's the first mover advantage, people who first got into Bitcoin get to lock in their share on relatively high percentage, those who get in later will have a smaller share of Bitcoin. But I mean they get the price they deserve.

2023-07-25 04:19:47

Verifying my Nostr Nests identity: VQUGf3ESrDr5X6QV8slgxnpQTJ6boXbv-1kteoVIGw8
https://nostrnests.com