Moving beyond "Reputation"--the Market View of Reality

Tim May tcmay at got.net
Sat Dec 1 13:46:36 PST 2001



On Saturday, December 1, 2001, at 01:40 PM, georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote:

> On 1 Dec 2001, at 12:56, jamesd at echeque.com wrote:
>
>>     --
>> On 1 Dec 2001, at 8:18, georgemw at speakeasy.net wrote:
>>> I'm surprised I've gotten so much disagreement over this,
>>> particularly since my original statement was much weaker
>>> than it could have been.  For reputation to have a single
>>> well defined value it is necessary but not sufficient that
>>> there be a market in reputations; it must be a COMMODITIZED
>>> market.
>>
>> Not so.
>>
>> Something has a single well defined value to its possessor
>> without any need for it to be commoditized.
>>
>> For an item to have a single well defined market value it
>> needs to be commoditized, but that is a different issue.
>>
>
> We're not disagreeing. By a "single" value I meant a universally
> agreed upon value.

If there is a "universally agreed upon value" for something, and someone 
values it differently, is it still "universal"?

Nope.

What there may be are market-clearing prices, in various markets and at 
various times, but this has nothing to do with "universally agreed-upon 
values."


--Tim May
"The State is the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the 
expense of everyone else." --Frederic Bastiat





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list