On the other hand, in a sense we do decide, through the market, to put prices on them, i.e., they do not have prices purely by virtue of their use to us, but also by virtue of their inclusion in a social practice of exchange on the basis of money, which is based on conventional behaviour—playing the game. After all, they can be provided without charge, if we decide not to put prices on them. — Jamal

Price reflects the relationship between supply and demand. Demand will be there whether we arrive at a price or give it away. I think demand is fundamentally rooted in biology.

So the question to the OP is: how much more real does value have to be to be really real? — Jamal

The statement I read into it could be thought of in terms of the private language argument.

In the argument, replace the individual who struggles to maintain meaning with a private language with a community that struggles to maintain the meaning of values which are all chosen by the community itself. Since the community can change its values on a whim, there's no way to take any particular set of values seriously.

The point of this thought experiment is not to show that values don't exist, but rather that values depend on an image of an external, unchanging grounding. When I say "external" I mean external to the human community.

And where do those basic values come from? Instinct? Learning? Experience? Physiological reaction? I guess all of those tossed together into the blender of our cognitive machinery. — T Clark

It could be that to the extent we value rightly, we're in tune with the Mind of God. But coincidentally, all the little parts of your body act like they're in a community and they work all day long to make the community endure. Each one gives freely to the others what it can, and takes back in turn. Maybe all this good will bubbles up into the realm of the psyche as value.

Sure. My point was simply that it's an attitude - and suggesting that this is common to all values. I'm not suggesting that attitudes are always chosen. I'm not sure wha that would mean.

Direction of fit is not so much about choice. — Banno

I agree. I was reading the OP as having to do with choice. I may have misunderstood.

Perhaps. Does it follow then that food and shelter have a value that is found in the world, as opposed to being given by us? It seems to me that the value of shelter is a consequence of our wants and needs, as opposed to being found in the brut fact of the shelter. That we "do not have control" of such wants and needs does not make them a thing found in the world.

All this by way of saying that a desire for shelter is an attitude we adopt towards shelter, as opposed to a discovery we might make about shelter.

One cannot point to the value of a shelter in the way one can point to it's roof. — Banno

You're saying that since the value of shelter isn't a part of the shelter, but rather an aspect of our relationship to it, value is dependent on us. That's true, but I don't remember adopting an attitude towards a roof in the rain. That need has just always been there.

The only way to be in a position to choose would be if I'm prepared to go without necessities and die. Then I could say I gave the shelter its value when I decided to live. But having decided to live, there I am, bound to my needs just as surely as I'm bound to the rules of this world.

But we do decide to give value (in fiat currency denominations) to even dire necessities. If you don't pay your water bill, the city will eventually cut off your supply. One could die if the happened. Tough, says the city, Tell your children to pay their bills. Ditto for heat. No money? Sorry, no food for you! Homeless? No money? The great outdoors awaits you. (Or, more likely the great — BC

You're saying we do have a choice in whether we value necessities because we choose to value our own lives. I'll buy that.

It is interesting to examine the "'art' market". Jack puts paint on canvas in an organized way and takes it to a gallery. The gallery owner gives it a "value"; let's say $3,000 dollars. The factors the art dealer considers extend beyond the 'art' itself; there is the matter of income for the gallery, the future value of Jack's art work (since he is "an up and coming artist"), the 'art' market (where buyers seem to be interested in paintings of car wrecks, like Jack's), and so on. — BC

It's all psychological. At present, the world's banking system is threatened by a devaluation of "floating" profit and loss. It's virtual value. It's not real, but it really threatens people's well being.

This virtual value is basically what banks create. It's possible because of the fundamentally abstract nature of money.

Well, I'm supposed to be outside playing.

Take up ↪BC's point. Money only has value because we say so. Therefore money doesn't exist?

It's a stupid argument — Banno

The counter argument would be that money doesn't have value, strictly speaking. It represents value in a standardized way. Without a functional economy where a peice of currency can be traded for food, shelter, etc., the currency couldn't be given value by fiat (that's roughly true, anyway).

We don't decide to give value to food and shelter, so in this case value is rooted in basic needs and desires which we don't control.

If value can be given at whim, it can just as easily be removed at whim, and so is insubstantial. That's an approximation of a common intuition about it, anyway.

The US simply should look just why it's health care costs are so insanely more than in any other country. — ssu

They have. I mean doctors have. I think the theory at this point is that Americans are unusually unhealthy. Not sure why, but I'm sure the American Sugar Association isn't helping. They actively squash research that clearly shows the dangers of over doing sugar.

Oh, it’s all “making it easier for voters to vote”. The censorship, altering state laws, social media censorship all makes sense now. — NOS4A2

There was a little pandemic going on at the time. But yes, the establishment wanted him out. He was too much of a wild card (idiot).

Powell announced a moderate rate increase in response to signs the economy is warming. Now we'll see if it's enough to chill the economy without bringing down any banks.

I remember one of best reason given by some guy to vote Trump: with Trump as president the press will do their job. With Hillary they will be her lap dog. — ssu

There's probably some truth to that. The one I saw that sticks with me is a young woman living in West Virginia where the demise of coal mining left a lot of people in poverty. She saw a vote for Clinton as a vote for the status quo. Voting for Trump meant at least trying to improve things.

That still doesn't make him a good US president, — ssu

I don't think NOS wanted him to be a good US president. He wanted Trump to break the system and create the conditions for a revolution. In another century NOS would have been a communist.

For it is one of the most admirable qualities of the demagogue that he forces men to think

That's true.

I’m not confident he will be convicted or not because the entire system is stacked against someone like Trump — NOS4A2

He's done fairly well for himself in spite of that.

I am suspicious of the system and anyone who earns a living from it. — NOS4A2

I assume you aren't talking about mailmen. Politicians are an odd breed. A true politician doesn't have much of a moral compass. She's just looking for prominence. But in a democratic system, the way to gain prominence is to please the people. That means politicians do pay attention to what the people want. A prime example is Biden's present support for tuition reimbursement. He wouldn't be supporting that except that it became apparent that in order to secure the electorate, he would have to move left.

Likewise, Trump's success showed that Republicans need to move toward being a little more anti-Semitic and racist in order to keep their voters. Thus DeSantis freely brings up Soros as a way to attack Democratic NYC. It couldn't be more plainly anti-Semitic, but it's working for him. If it wasn't he would back off of it.

And then you have Trump. He's not a politician. He's not trying to please the people. What do you think he's trying to do?

The state is only after protecting its own interests and Trump goes against those interests. — NOS4A2

The state is something larger than any particular generation. It's not the kind of thing that acts on its own. A state is basically a kind of legal technology. Think of it as a kind of animal that, having evolved, is very successful. That's why you have to go hunting moose near the arctic circle to get away from them. They're incredibly successful at this time.

The establishment is a different thing. It's a generational cohort that has found itself with the power to protect its power. An establishment doesn't usually get super rigid and reactionary unless they think their power is in danger. Our present establishment has no fears. They're not particularly worried about Trump because he can't really do the kind of damage he might like to do.

Trump wouldn't be facing charges now if he hadn't directed his lawyer to violate campaign finance laws and then subsequently publicly distance himself from that lawyer. That pissed Cohen off and he's been trying to get revenge ever since. As people close to Trump explain, Trump has a tendency to create conflict and war for himself. Even if it's not there, he'll create it. It's just his personality.

If you give someone money and they do with it what they want it’s your fault for giving them money. — NOS4A2

Ok. So you don't think Trump should be prosecuted for this particular law because it's unjust. You're suspicious that the charges are politically motivated (by a grand jury). At the same time, you're confident that since he hasn't been convicted of any crimes up until now, he won't be found guilty this time either.

Don't worry about people frothing at the mouth. It doesn't matter.

Because they are stupid laws — NOS4A2

Why are they stupid? They're supposed to protect doners so you don't give me money to run for alderman only to find that I spent your money on donuts.

I believe in justice and prosecuting someone for non-violent vices such as a campaign finance violations is unjust — NOS4A2

Prosecuting someone for violating campaign finance laws is unjust? Why?

It depends on the law because I do not believe in most of them. — NOS4A2

And that's what I figured it was really coming down to with you: you're an anarchist, so you don't support any type of prosecution for anyone.

Oh dear. You can curate and string together as many of my quotes as you wish and give yourself exactly the story you want to hear. It’s a telling habit. Still, two impeachments, dozens and dozens of investigations, and here you are empty handed with nothing to show for the wasted efforts, tax dollars, and time you’ve spent as a true believer. — NOS4A2

Just putting aside mouth frothing, if there's evidence that he violated the law, he should be prosecuted. I'm sure you agree with that.

“I have no interest in getting involved in some manufactured circus by some Soros-DA,” DeSantis said at a news conference Monday,
NBC

I guess this is a Soros-DA:

"Bragg is from Harlem, and grew up on Striver's Row.[2] In an interview with The American Prospect, Bragg noted that he had been "deeply affected by the criminal justice system – most directly through three gunpoint stops by the NYPD."[3] He graduated from the Trinity School[4] before attending Harvard College. He graduated from Harvard cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in government in 1995[2][5] and earned his Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review.[5][4]"

-wikipedia

oops

nice post. :up:

I mean your faith is cute, — unenlightened

This is me. I need to visit the barber.

I would have said "sell securities, raise rates," three weeks ago, but now it looks like that will risk sending the banking system into a crisis. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:up: The foreign exchange market is showing that global sentiment doesn't expect the fed to raise rates any further. The dollar is getting weaker, not stronger as it would if a rate hike was expected.

There's a lot of uncertainty right now

To this extent I'd agree with your characterization of the fallacy. Hitler was responsible for what Hitler did; history was responsible for creating the conditions that made Hitler possible. — Pantagruel

:up:

That, sir, is a very third rate religion you're espousing, I'm afraid. Not because it has proven false, for religion does not deal in fact, but because it entirely lacks ambition. — unenlightened

I don't think the world needs to be saved, if that's what you mean.

Again, the Dasein was Hitler-compatible ... — 180 Proof

This is a fallacy called reductio ad Hitlerum.

It simply wasn't in the news. Only later we found out that the whole financial system had been close to collapsing. And just how much was given to banks and corporations. — ssu

It was pretty obvious when the chairman of the fed and the secretary of the Treasury appeared before Congress asking for money. Everyone knew that 55 trillion dollars had just disappeared and that the banking system was in credit freeze. Most of the bail out was legislation called TARP.

Perhaps the money that people have in banks should be secured — ssu

It's insured by the FDIC up to a certain amount.

But it should be absolutely clear that the Fed works for Wall Street. — ssu

Of course.

Apparently a grand jury thinks there's enough evidence to indict. Have a little faith in the system, man.

I think the Fed is now busy saving the banking system... again. — ssu

I don't think that was the Fed, if you're talking about 2008-2009. It was Congress and the Treasury.

Is that a “no”? — NOS4A2

He's going to be charged with violating federal campaign finance laws. You been out hunting moose or something?

Can you tell me briefly what he did this time that has the foam increasing in and around the mouths of those who believe this shit? — NOS4A2

I don’t know nor care about the details. — NOS4A2

:chin:

What isn’t true? — NOS4A2

They aren't relying on Cohen's word. He's supposedly got a recording that proves Trump directed him to violate campaign finance laws.

You didn't know that?

The establishment’s base is resting their hopes on the word of a porn star, a lawyer who plead guilty for lying, and a political district attorney — NOS4A2

I'm pretty sure you know this isn't true. Why are you saying it?

That's like saying that policemen do not commit crimes. — unenlightened

I guess we're thinking of different meanings of "establishment.". Today's establishment is those college kids who wrestled with the police at Kent State. Clinton was very progressive in her youth and then became part of the new establishment. It's not about authority or policing anything. If anything, our establishment is "let the markets do what they want and defund aid to the inner cities.". That's what both Clinton and her husband ultimately stood for.

I know it's hard to think of Trump as the leader of the young rabble rousers, but he actually is. He was elected in part by refugees from the Democratic party. It didn't turn out well. He didn't strike a particularly heroic pose, but he did reveal a well of frustration with, and anger toward...

the establishment.

Likewise any revolutionary government comes to power in a coup and immediately becomes established or is overthrown by a counter coup by the disestablished establishment. — unenlightened

I'm sure Trump would have liked to establish his own ment. He wanted to be a dictator.

think so. Rather in the same way that a corrupt policeman is still a member of the police. — unenlightened

Broadly speaking, he's an anti-establishment figure. He was a perfect rendition of the demagogue who leads the fight against the establishment. In this case, the establishment is neoliberal, so MAGA was about taking the country back to somewhere around 1965 when embedded liberalism assured the average white guy a good job with benefits.

It wasn't a good look when Obama and Clinton tried to explain that we can't go back. That assured that they'd be taken as exactly what they are: representatives of the establishment.

Another hint is that establishment figures don't try to arrange coups.

. Governments bearing the risk of bank failures turn people apathetic to their banks' behavior. — Tzeentch

In this case the threat is coming from central bank policy, so it's a little late to cry "laissez faire!". But yes, bank failures are a good thing (unless they aren't).

Trump, his Republican supporters... are all entrenched part of "the establishment". — Fooloso4

No, I don't think so.

Yes, because The Prez stands at the Gates of America very much like Gandalf stood before the Gates of Minas Tirith, and by his power turned away the servant of Sauron. EVEN Donald Trump was able to thwart invasions from the Bahamas and bird-like aliens from a distant star system, just by standing resolutely in front of the the urinal in the oval room powder room.

Iceland is waiting for a lapse in our powerful presidency, as is Lichtenstein, Morocco, and Sri Lanka.

Can the POTUS by force of his high office turn back ICBMs? Apparently -- otherwise the Soviet Union would have long since buried us, as Nikita Khrushchev foretold. Unfortunately, coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was able to slip past the Great Guardian and Guarantor of Freedom. — BC

This sounds slightly sarcastic.

No they don't. The whole reason arbitrage works is because information assymetry, which we even see in highly liquid, transparent stock markets, let alone complex relationships resulting from the interaction of various supply chains. — Benkei

Which part of that is outside the economy?

It isn't just that the existing political process will fail to solve our significant -- even existential -- problems. It IS the case that the existing political process CAN NOT solve our problems. — BC

We still have to have a president, though. If we have no head of government, somebody will invade.