This is why you don't let children choose their gender
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (34)
sorted by:
Yes they do. They were used both for adornment, which is a real effect, and for construction (building walls), which is also a real effect. If it is real, i.e. actually exists, it has value. While I agree that not everyone agrees on the value of everything, everyone knows if something has actual value, as in, it can be used to have causal input into the universe, vs. if it has no value, as in, it can't actually have any real effect on anything, except in a state of perpetual faith.
False. Currency (a medium of exchange for barter) only exists when an authority demands it, or, in the case of the sea shells, when it has real use outside of it's use for currency. Look at history, look at every single "currency" (as you mean the term), you will find it was always demanded by the Priests (Temple, i.e. a ruling body), a King, or some other ruling body that demands its use for tax, or "to pay for prayers," etc., or demands its use as a currency of account, which is again, generally part of a taxation system (religious or governmental or both). Every single currency always comes from the ruling body, or, in the case of shells, has other useful value that everyone in the society uses (shells were used to build houses).
You may not realize it, but you are proving my point with this. This is exactly what brainwashing is, and how it self-persists through generations.
If the system is set up so that valuing money gives an economic advantage, then money becomes "valuable," even if it doesn't actually have any value. That is an Illusion of value, through the creation and self-perpetuation of a brilliantly constructed, but fraudulent system of thievery, and the perpetuation of the rulership class.
Ohhhhh, I get it now. You are just insane. You consider usefulness to be the only measure of value, and anybody who says otherwise is wrong. As far as currency is concerned, kids come up with currencies on their own without even knowing what money is or how it works. My siblings and I wanted to accumulate as much marbles as possible because MORE == BETTER. And then we would trade marbles for other cool stuff that we had. Nobody demanded we pay taxes or anything. That is just laughably crazy to believe that is the only reason currency has existed. You consider observational learning to be brainwashing... got it. Like I said, I agree that fiat currency is a scam, but the rest of the nonsense you are spewing is just that... nonsense.
This is not a direct address of anything I said, nor do I have any idea why you think this is true. I'm not sure what I said that angered you, but it isn't helpful to a reasonable conversation.
Marbles have real value. How are you not getting it? Marbles are a natural currency because of their intrinsic value. They are pretty, you can use them to play games. You can roll them around which is fun and teaches people about physics (exploration of natural phenomena). Some are prettier than others. All of those things are real effects; real value, distinct from their use as a currency.
That is because no one needed to make those demands for you to use marbles because they had real value.
You obviously have not studied monetary history. Do a deep dive. You will find corroboration for all of my statements. Currency only exists for two reasons, intrinsic value, or fiat (demands from authority). Period. All you have to do is look and you will find the evidence, it's literally everywhere. Suggesting such a statement is "laughably crazy" is... I don't want to say "ignorant beyond reason," because that's rude, so I'll just say I don't think you've actually put any study into this at all.
Do you read the things that you write? That is exactly what you have been saying the whole time. Usefulness is your measure of value. If I sound angry to you, your intent must have been to attempt to elicit a reaction out of me. I am amused by you, and I am figuring out how your mind works. Marbles were just the thing we had access to. We could have just as easily used dirt, which has uses. It can fill holes, you can build with it. It is too abundant to use for trade though. We could have used sticks, which we could play with and build with. They are too abundant to use for trade. I just gave you a direct example of children creating a currency without being demanded to. I believe you are so blinded by what you consider to be the only way to think about this issue, that you are refusing to accept any other information. THAT is what I consider brainwashed.
I am completely accepting your information. I am then giving direct address and argument against it. You are replying with red herrings and straw man arguments.
For example, yes, sticks and dirt can be useful but are not useful for currency. I agree. But you are assuming in this response that I am suggesting that usefulness is the only quality required for a currency that is used based on real value. I never said that. I only said it was a necessary quality.
Other qualities for a reasonable currency would be portability, durability, and rarity/desirability (it is easier to trade for it than go outside and pick it up).
Interestingly, both marbles and shells fit all four criteria.
I was addressing the second part of the statement:
when I said:
I should have been more clear. That was my bad.