the physics of economics(on the impedance of the medium of money)

[c0resonance]

Start with a wage, deal with money creation in the financial system and how fast money turns over. But the instability of the money system due to an impedance of about 3% was known in the 1930s. The problem area is that productivity gains in new technologies cause the supply curve to parallel the demand curve and economists don't know what to do about that.

im not trying to invent a system. im asking how the one we have works.

in the case of a wage, how would i know how much to ask for? how are the value of commodities defined?

i would need to know the "costs of living" before i could ask for how much wage i needed.

3% impedance? from what?

in physics it would be due to electromagnetic induction. what is the mechanism in economics?

i would need an example of the the concept you illustrated about supply curve and demand curves. is this relevant to my questions?

The 3% was the productivity gains vs. specie of that period. The most famous case of productivity outstripping demand satiation is Moore's law. Computing costs decline by 41% per year but demand does not increase by 70% per year (the reciprocal, 1/0.59)

how is it that productivity gains = loss in value of money? it seems as though things should just get cheaper to buy as they get cheaper to manufacture.

i still dont understand how the value of money, or any other commodity is defined.... seems like an important first step before we cant talk about incline or decline of said value.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

im not trying to invent a system. im asking how the one we have works.

in the case of a wage, how would i know how much to ask for? how are the value of commodities defined?

i would need to know the "costs of living" before i could ask for how much wage i needed.

3% impedance? from what?

in physics it would be due to electromagnetic induction. what is the mechanism in economics?

i would need an example of the the concept you illustrated about supply curve and demand curves. is this relevant to my questions?

The 3% was the productivity gains vs. specie of that period. The most famous case of productivity outstripping demand satiation is Moore's law. Computing costs decline by 41% per year but demand does not increase by 70% per year (the reciprocal, 1/0.59)

how is it that productivity gains = loss in value of money? it seems as though things should just get cheaper to buy as they get cheaper to manufacture.

i still dont understand how the value of money, or any other commodity is defined.... seems like an important first step before we cant talk about incline or decline of said value.

The value of money is intrinsic. For instance, gold evolved as the store of value because it is/was rare, maluable, nearly indestructable and one of the best conductors of electricity that we know about.
Productivity gains (presumably referring to enhanced productivity) do not equal the loss of stored value. What tends to drive devaluation of money, is inflating the supply.

 

[c0resonance]

The 3% was the productivity gains vs. specie of that period. The most famous case of productivity outstripping demand satiation is Moore's law. Computing costs decline by 41% per year but demand does not increase by 70% per year (the reciprocal, 1/0.59)

how is it that productivity gains = loss in value of money? it seems as though things should just get cheaper to buy as they get cheaper to manufacture.

i still dont understand how the value of money, or any other commodity is defined.... seems like an important first step before we cant talk about incline or decline of said value.

The value of money is intrinsic. For instance, gold evolved as the store of value because it is/was rare, maluable, nearly indestructable and one of the best conductors of electricity that we know about.
Productivity gains (presumably referring to enhanced productivity) do not equal the loss of stored value. What tends to drive devaluation of money, is inflating the supply.

value is not intrinsic! it is subjective!

"intrinsic or intrinsical (ɪnˈtrɪnsɪk)
— adj
1. of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent "

you cannot say money is naturally worth what it is worth. thats cyclic.

the money supply cannot be inflated unless money creation(value quantization) can be defined.

in order to create one dollar, the value of that dollar must be defined. correct?

how is the value of money defined. it cannot be intrinsic because that is cyclic.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

something i was pondering today just for the sake of intrigue.

money is a representation, a medium if u will, of energy.

No it isn't.

in physics energy is lost when transferred through a medium, and/or when the energy is changed from 1 medium to another. the amount of energy lost is dependent on the capacities of the medium of storage, and the impedance of the medium of transfer. this loss of energy phenomenon is known as entropy.

im curious on peoples opinions on the nature of entropy as it relates to money. for example, what factors define the level of impedance in the mediums of transfer?

for example, is the conversion rate of energy to money an equal conversion? and what scale of measurement is/would be used for such a task?

The energy isn't lost, its thermalized.

 

[c0resonance]

something i was pondering today just for the sake of intrigue.

money is a representation, a medium if u will, of energy.

No it isn't.

then what is it?

in physics energy is lost when transferred through a medium, and/or when the energy is changed from 1 medium to another. the amount of energy lost is dependent on the capacities of the medium of storage, and the impedance of the medium of transfer. this loss of energy phenomenon is known as entropy.

im curious on peoples opinions on the nature of entropy as it relates to money. for example, what factors define the level of impedance in the mediums of transfer?

for example, is the conversion rate of energy to money an equal conversion? and what scale of measurement is/would be used for such a task?

The energy isn't lost, its thermalized.

agree of course.

my further questions will depend on your response to the question of "what IS money then?"

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

something i was pondering today just for the sake of intrigue.

money is a representation, a medium if u will, of energy.

No it isn't.

then what is it?

in physics energy is lost when transferred through a medium, and/or when the energy is changed from 1 medium to another. the amount of energy lost is dependent on the capacities of the medium of storage, and the impedance of the medium of transfer. this loss of energy phenomenon is known as entropy.

im curious on peoples opinions on the nature of entropy as it relates to money. for example, what factors define the level of impedance in the mediums of transfer?

for example, is the conversion rate of energy to money an equal conversion? and what scale of measurement is/would be used for such a task?

The energy isn't lost, its thermalized.

agree of course.

my further questions will depend on your response to the question of "what IS money then?"[/QUOTE]


Money is nothing more than a ledger in a bank's book somewhere.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

how is it that productivity gains = loss in value of money? it seems as though things should just get cheaper to buy as they get cheaper to manufacture.

i still dont understand how the value of money, or any other commodity is defined.... seems like an important first step before we cant talk about incline or decline of said value.

The value of money is intrinsic. For instance, gold evolved as the store of value because it is/was rare, maluable, nearly indestructable and one of the best conductors of electricity that we know about.
Productivity gains (presumably referring to enhanced productivity) do not equal the loss of stored value. What tends to drive devaluation of money, is inflating the supply.

value is not intrinsic! it is subjective!

"intrinsic or intrinsical (ɪnˈtrɪnsɪk)
— adj
1. of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent "

you cannot say money is naturally worth what it is worth. thats cyclic.

the money supply cannot be inflated unless money creation(value quantization) can be defined.

in order to create one dollar, the value of that dollar must be defined. correct?

how is the value of money defined. it cannot be intrinsic because that is cyclic.

Money is most certainly intrinsic to humans. Are you aware of how many different commodities and items have been used as a store of value over the course of history?
It is natural in economics. Economics is the social, or soft science of human action. Praxeology. it is not a defined hard science such as physics. Which essentially makes your entire concept moot. These two things do not correlate.

However, there are some valuable insights to understanding that human action in economics is defined by expelling energy (production) and bringing it to market (other people) for exchange. We use a store of value, or money (generally currency as of today) to make these exchanges upon evolving human action out of the limiting exchange of barter.

A dollar is not money. It is currency. That currency today is dictated in value by the confidence in the US federal government. Before the gold standard was removed, that value was anchored to gold.

Humans define the value of a unit of exchange. But it isn't the money itself that is of value. it is the stored energy for use later based on the means of ones production.

 

[Uncensored2008]

im well aware of the social decline. and well aware of the unsightly flaws of fiat currency.... this is merely an entertaining intellectual endeavor.

You lose any credibility on the subjects of economics or physics, when you fail to construct an elementary sentence correctly.

Three little letters, learn them; Y-O-U.

 

[c0resonance]

Money is most certainly intrinsic to humans. Are you aware of how many different commodities and items have been used as a store of value over the course of history?

yes although, that does not prove an intrinsic nature.

It is natural in economics. Economics is the social, or soft science of human action. Praxeology. it is not a defined hard science such as physics. Which essentially makes your entire concept moot. These two things do not correlate.

are you supposing that it is not a rational science? what is "undefined science"?

if systems do not correlate, they can not interact, money is superfluous then? are you familiar with substance dualism?

However, there are some valuable insights to understanding that human action in economics is defined by expelling energy (production) and bringing it to market (other people) for exchange. We use a store of value, or money (generally currency as of today) to make these exchanges upon evolving human action out of the limiting exchange of barter.

yes these are the dynamics i am curious about, energy is expelled and exchanged, etc. what are the "thermodynamic laws" of economics?

you say money is "used" as a store of "value(energy?)" and that it is "used" in the exchange of value(energy?) define "use".

A dollar is not money. It is currency. That currency today is dictated in value by the confidence in the US federal government. Before the gold standard was removed, that value was anchored to gold.

hah, confidence in the government? no one has that

and, confidence in the government TO DO WHAT? there is an implication of action there. it must go beyond confidence that they exist....

even in the case of gold, its value must be defined relative to other values. a basis for comparison must be defined.

Humans define the value of a unit of exchange. But it isn't the money itself that is of value. it is the stored energy for use later based on the means of ones production.

yes youve said that before, im asking HOW that definition is arrived at.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Physics and economics do not correlate in that economics is not a hard science. It is not bound by the same rules.

If you want to understand economics. Read economic books. If you want to have a discussion that compares physics and economics, these are two very separate and different sciences.

 

[c0resonance]

Physics and economics do not correlate in that economics is not a hard science. It is not bound by the same rules.

If you want to understand economics. Read economic books. If you want to have a discussion that compares physics and economics, these are two very separate and different sciences.

physics is the science of reality. if economics wants to exist IN REALITY, it must correlate with physics.

i am actually fairly well read on economic philosophy.

i am not coming here truly for the purpose of learning how these systems work, but for the purpose of illustrating how they do not work.

maybe i will state my premise clearly now;

it is impossible to objectively quantify the value of anything. objectivity is a fallacy.
EDIT;
THUS standardized currency is impossible.

my questions are intended to be illustrative of this fundamental problem.

that is my aim in asking them.

now if you would like to argue that economics is rational, you must explain how it works in physics.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Economics isn't necessarily rational.

Standardized currency is impossible?

We've had one in the US for over 100 years. The federal reserve note conforms to the legal tender laws of the united states.

 

[c0resonance]

Economics isn't necessarily rational.

Standardized currency is impossible?

We've had one in the US for over 100 years. The federal reserve note conforms to the legal tender laws of the united states.

how can something be standardized, and irrational?

does not standardization imply a rational system?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Holy shit, fella.
Economics is a lot bigger than currency.

Currency can be standardized, economics can be irrational. Does this make sense?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I like the premise put put forth with economics and energy. Yes, I realize that implies physics. But in this case it's more biological and psychological than of the physical properties associated in real world physics and themodynamics.

It's a social science of the highest order.

 

[c0resonance]

Holy shit, fella.
Economics is a lot bigger than currency.

Currency can be standardized, economics can be irrational. Does this make sense?

rational systems and irrational systems cannot interact.

at best, they may be able to interact, but only in completely unpredictable ways.

what use can we derive from unpredictable systems?

 

[c0resonance]

EDIT;

actually an irrational system is an oxymoron. so if economics is irrational. its meaningless to speak of at all.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What use? Is the standard of living for all being raised through human action or is it in decline?
The answer is the population has grown beyond past known measure and people live longer and better in general terms.

Is that behavior organized, rational and highly predictable or stable?
Absolutely not. It can be, but it can also be highly irrational and still function on many levels. Or if you prefer unpredictable in outcomes.

 

[c0resonance]

What use? Is the standard of living for all being raised through human action or is it in decline?

in order to answer that question we must define the "standard". this is the problem we are faced with.

The answer is the population has grown beyond past known measure and people live longer and better in general terms.

the quality of life assertion is baseless until we define our "standard".
for instance i could simply disagree that we live in "better" general terms.
define "better".

Is that behavior organized, rational and highly predictable or stable?
Absolutely not. It can be, but it can also be highly irrational and still function on many levels. Or if you prefer unpredictable in outcomes.

it is irrelevant to consider irrational factors. the only relevant factors are rational ones.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

We have historical basis as a standard. We can see that people live longer based on historical record. Jeebus, bro. I'm not that stoned.