Hacker News
points by Johanx64 9 hours ago | 0 comments
> the value of my work does not lie in the amount of money that can be gotten in exchange for it.

What do you think money is?

It's a rough proxy approximation for value. So yes, the amount of money you can get for your work is rough approximation of its value.

You can also have a precious pet rock that you personally hold very dear and well "valueable" - but valuable to nobody but you only. So realistically it has zero value to everyone else.

If you don't care about creating value, you don't care about people.

As, ultimately, it costs money to care for people, and if you don't have it - all you have are prayers and best wishes, and you functionally can't help anyone.

[–] DonaldPShimoda 8 hours ago
> What do you think money is? It's a rough proxy approximation for value.

Money is an abstraction, not an approximation. There is not of necessity any real basis for any price that has ever been attached to any product or service, ever. Money is an artificial mechanism by which we exchange debt owed by the issuing state that itself also has no real basis.

> If you don't care about creating value, you don't care about people.

On this we agree, but, of course, my point was that when I say "value" I don't mean monetary value. A person's value is intangible, and the value of their works (whatever those may be) is derived entirely from the relationship formed between the artist and their context and the connection from this relationship to whoever wishes to partake of the art.

> As, ultimately, it costs money to care for people, and if you don't have it - all you have are prayers and best wishes, and you functionally can't help anyone.

What a woefully capitalistic perspective. I wish the best of luck to you and your shareholders.

[–] bit-anarchist 5 hours ago
This is a simplistic view over money and currencies in general. Money is a form of credit. It's an abstraction in the sense that it unifies preferences and signals under a single dimension. It's an approximation in the sense that, when you buy something for 20 bucks, it's not that the something is actually worth 20 bucks, but that you value 20 bucks (and, by extension, the other things you could buy with them) than the something.

In this regard, while it's kinda wrong to say "it costs money to care for people", caring for people is not free either - you have to spend something: time, labor, psyche, favors, etc. All of these can be acquired or replaced by trading with others (which is preferable to do through money): buying tools/machines, hiring workers/services, acquiring means to connect with others, and so on. Turns out money is just a more verifiable and simplified form of favors.

[–] DonaldPShimoda 54 minutes ago
> It's an approximation in the sense that, when you buy something for 20 bucks, it's not that the something is actually worth 20 bucks, but that you value 20 bucks (and, by extension, the other things you could buy with them) than the something.

I regret to inform you that this is actually a description of abstraction, not approximation. :) The twenty "dollars" abstract over the notion of "a quantity that is owed" such that you can exchange the otherwise meaningless scraps of paper (or just bytes these days!) for other goods/services. If you were not going to use that money for something else, it actually has no value, curiously enough.

Decades ago, money had a concrete value in that you could request the issuing government to take your dollars and give you gold at an established exchange rate. When we abandoned the gold standard (and all forms of fiscal concretization), money became inherently abstract.

> Turns out money is just a more verifiable and simplified form of favors.

I should like to refer you to the book "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" for an alternative look at monetary systems, credit and debt, favors, and more. I found it a fascinating read (I mean that genuinely), and very educational with regard to this claim in particular.