-
Not sure how your question relates, I'll answer it though and then ask my own questions... Answer: I personally wouldn't ask the price of something when I didn't know what it was. But to play along, I would ask what it's used for and I would judge it's value in relation to its usefulness to me and I'd then judge its price in
-
Your error, of course, lies in the phrase "one or more". It's like saying "A mountain is a mound of earth one or more inches high" Not sure what you mean. Does it matter whether one person or a hundred used it for something other than exchange purposes before it was a medium of exchange? No one valued Bitcoins for any reason
-
It seems like you have a need to prove "Mises's Regression Theorem" even with evidence to the contrary. The Theorem (in essence) says that a thing must be valued for one or more non-exchange purposes by one or more people before it can be used for indirect exchange. Bitcoin violates the theorem. 1. It was not valued for one or more non
-
Can someone answer this question?... How does Mises's Regression Theorem explain the use of shells as money? I find it hard to believe they were useful in any way before they became money. As to Bitcoin. It's unique. It's an artificially created good (commodity) with the express purpose of becoming money or a medium of exchange. As any economist
-
This might be naive on my part but after reading dozens of volumes on Austrian economics I have a nagging question... Gold is no doubt the king of currencies in a free market. It's durable, it's divisible, etc. However, and this leads to my question, most commodities are PERISHABLE. They have a limited shelf life. In some cases that shelf life