Re: [A-List] The Peso is a "Derivative" of the Dollar

["Annewilliamson" <Annewilliamson@xxxxxxx>]

Sabri:

I think my earlier responses to Henry and Christian addresses most of your
comment.

But, again, concerning value:  There is no "price of gold".  Gold is the
price!

And, if it's justice we're after, then it is important to keep in mind that
those who pay
the greatest price for the fiat system are the poor.

Anne

PS  One of the loveliest definitions of money I ever encountered - and it
was in the pages of that Tory rag, The Spectator - echoes your analogy to
temperature.  The editor wrote something to the effect that money is a kind
of light, flying from hand to hand, and that so long as it flies the game
goes on profitably, thus referencing the velocity of money rather
poetically.  My paraphrase is not poetic, and I just can't dredge up the
quote properly.  I'll try to find it for you as I think you'd like it, and
I'd like to re-read it myself.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sabri Oncu" <soncu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "ALIST" <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 3:26 PM
Subject: [A-List] The Peso is a "Derivative" of the Dollar


> Anne wrote:
>
> > And money must be a store of value;
>
> I always think of money as a "thing" similar to temperature:
> whatever temperature is to hotness, money is that to value, or
> maybe, to "something" else that "defines" value, possibly
> together with other "things". In other words, both temperature
> and money are just indices, or numbers, associated with hotness
> and that "thing" we may use to "define" value, respectively.
> Hence, they can be defined arbitrarily and, when conceptualized
> as such, neither is a store of anything. When most people speak
> of energy, they seem to behave as if they are talking about
> something tangible. But energy is not tangible: given a theory,
> it is just an abstract density or property whose existence may be
> deduced from observations and may be defined phenomenologically.
> For example, in the absence of motion and deformations, one can
> postulate that the energy (of a material object or body) is that
> density that depends in some manner on the hotness (of the
> material body) and hence on (its) temperature, measured in some
> scale. Whether this is a meaningful postulate or not is to be
> tested against  "reality", given a theory in which this postulate
> was made.
>
> Here are a few questions:
>
> 1) What is value?
> 2) What is that "thing" that corresponds to hotness?
> 3) How does any attempt to define value differ from the above
> attempt to define energy?
>
> Curiously yours,
> Sabri
>
>
>