I’ve received an email with a suggestion that #Ercoin should use #proof_of_work to obtain “intrinsic value”.

The problem with such thinking is that the labour theory of value (offen associated with #marxism) has been refuted. The work in general has no value in itself. The fact that work has been performed may provide “psychological value” for some, but there’s no real utility associated with it. More on this topic: mises.org/wire/labor-theory-va

#cryptocurrencies #economics


> to obtain “intrinsic value”.
- this has very little to do with the LTOV (which by the way has not been refuted, regardless of the delusions held by Austrian school economists), as proof-of-work refers to processor cycles in this case. But that's not even the point here. The interesting bit is that somebody out there thinks a cryptocurrency can hold "intrinsic value"...

@Antanicus Well, human labour can be exchanged for computer labour, so I see no problem in that matter except that Marx’s Law of Value seems to artificially limit itself to human labour (at least when reading the abstract at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_v ). Let’s say that we have a transport service. Does the value of that service fundamentally depend on whether it is performed by a human, by a horse or by an autonomous car?


> Does the value of that service fundamentally depend on whether it is performed by a human, by a horse or by an autonomous car?

-Of course. The marginal value of a good or service is always calculated based on the input cost vs. the unit cost. As the cost of machine labor is negligible compared to human labor and is infinitely available, then the value of a good/service produced by a machine will necessarily decrease over time to the least possible price.

@Antanicus So the law of value basically tells us that non-human resources are abundant? This seems coherent with marxists’ dislike for property rights (which are introduced to deal with scarcity of physical objects).

@KrzysiekJ no, the LTOV tells us that the value of a product/service includes the cost of the labor that is needed to produce it. Which is why capitalism doubled down on automation since the very beginning: automating away human jobs is the best way to lower the price of a product and thus sell more units and/or undercut the competitors.

@Antanicus I can perhaps agree with the above (assuming we’re talking about transactional price), however Wikipedia defines both terms differently:

LTV: “the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of »socially necessary labor« required to produce it”. Hence it should not matter if a car has square wheels.

law of value: “the relative exchange-values […] are proportional to the average amounts of human labor-time”. “Proportional”, hence capital does not matter.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

social.coop is a cooperatively-run corner of the Fediverse. The instance is democratically governed by its members, who generally share an interest in the co-op model, but topics of discussion range widely.

If you are interested in joining our community, please review our Bylaws and Code of Conduct. If you agree with them, you may apply for membership on our instance via this link

Our instance is supported by sliding scale contributions of $1-10/mo made via Open Collective. You must have an active Open Collective account to apply for membership; you may set one up here