[figgles]

So, in other words, it's really important? Like, pays our bills, heats our homes, puts food on the table? If you want to apply reductionist arguments, then ancient money is just piles of metal. Not like it had any "value" beyond what they collectively gave it, either.

Do we have to revisit the barter system where value is traded for value to once again realize the reason money was invented? Fish for tools works, until you want apples.

It doesn't matter whether something "intrinsically" has value (wood as fuel, apple as food) if you can trade it for something that does. As long as that remains true, karma remains an int and bank accounts remain buying power. Fin.

[robbrown451]

Whether it puts food on the table or not doesn't matter. People spend their time here, when they could be doing other things (or earning more money to put more food on the table). Ultimately karma has a certain value to some people, whether or not it does to you. Just as I might not understand why some people will pay 10s of thousands of dollars more for a car that, ultimately, does the same thing as another car. "intangible" does not mean "valueless"

Anyway, for karma to be effective, all it has to do is have enough value to outweigh the (equally intangible) value of the satisfaction of posting something trollish.

[einhverfr]

But money is just an abstract idea that we exchange for those other physical things. It isn't really a representation of anything physical anymore.

It's not like a bank keeps a physical amount of cash equal to all account holders' deposits (if they did, they'd have nothing to lend). Instead all you do with your money is transfer it, or get paper vouchers for it in forms like checks, money orders, or federal reserve notes......

That people accept those for things that are physical doesn't change the fact that the money is in fact not a representation of anything physical.