Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (28397)	2/4/2003 12:44:36 AM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<I don't get it that it's such a difficult concept. It's going to be a tough sell if you can't get it.> Said the wonk to the economist. ROFLMAO!!! Just "assume" he gets it! DAK

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (28397)	2/4/2003 1:22:14 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Aaah... I have a different understanding now. This was the trick: It is the person's time that we buy. NOT their productivity. The standard is time. Not production or productivity. But then the Q is like paying farmers to not produce grain? For this is what we get when we calibrate value based on time alone without regard to its consequence. Is it not? Am I right that you are putting a value on UNPRODUCTIVE time, e.g. I'll do your chores if you do my homework for me. In which case the currency isn't the value of the chores done, it's in the homework not done. Which is kind of like measuring dollars by how many ducks does it cost to get one. But in this case since everyone has the same number of hours (in a day), that hours have value. Intriguing. Take me and my wife, for example. I have no concept of time. I am hungry, I eat. I am sleepy, I sleep. Once absorbed into a problem I can grind away for hours without noticing the passage of a second. And, of course, if I am "on time" for anything then it is by fortunate accident. Where "on time" is defined as my not idling away moments in the corner somewhere waiting for some activity to start on account of someone else, nor embarrased in finding someone else in that situation on my account. Which allows me the luxury of being on time even if I am indeed two hours late. In contrast, my wife wakes up at 6:45, with or without the alarm clock. We got rid of the thing because I found it annoying. And yet she still wakes at that time. She eats dinner at 6:30 because it is supper time. She has never been late for an appointment in her life (or at least won't admit to it), except when I've been responsible for logistics, and even then "late" is defined by being less than 10 minutes earlier than the clock on the wall where we arrive. Or whenever we arrive. Whichever is earlier. My day is full of wonder and adventure. And a bit of frenetic panic every once in a while. An electronic organizer to me is like a gift from the gods, and the most annoying thing on the planet simultaneously. She on the other hand is rushed and harried from 6:46 am until 10:44 pm, with every minute of every hour carrying extreme importance, until it has passed, and then attention switches with laser focus on the next entry in the day's calendar. She would kill for an extra hour in every day. And then promptly fill it. And shortly thereafter complain about having too much to do. Me, I wouldn't know what to do with an extra hour 'cause I can't hardly keep track of the ones I've got. To me, an extra hour of leisure time is not worth so much. To my wife, a whole lot more. So if I end up "purchasing" a spare hour of her time, shouldn't it be "worth" more to her than to me? And then to complicate things, sometimes like Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde I flip. Suddenly my day is scheduled to precision. And any interruption from the script is terrible. And there isn't any time to squeeze a sneeze in sideways. And I would kill for an extra minute. Thankfully these days are few and far between (if I can help it). But they serve to make me acutely aware that if I ever did get a promise from someone to take a day's work off my hands it would be one of those days! Ergo even the one constant thing that I have only so much of varies in value to me!! Quite an unusual basis for a currency. Seriously destabilizes the concept of savings. Isn't the whole prinicple of free market economics based on the differential perception of value? So wouldn't the Q that you propose (why don't we just skip the difficulty and call it an Hour?) be hard to entrench as a currency? Since while it is unarguably the same for every individual, it varies in worth. Ergo 1 Q would be an entirely individually negotiated currency. Yikes! If you give me an hour, what do I displace with it? The one hour in the day where I make a valuable contribution to society, or an hour of sleep? I will have to think more about this. But on the surface I think something strange of time as a currency. John