[LukeB42]

There is a finite amount of energy in this universe and yet here we are at "Practically all prices are determined on the fly".

This is mere bankster handwaving in lieu of calculating physically intrinsic value for a sufficient number of commodities.

[JumpCrisscross]

> a finite amount of energy in this universe and yet here we are at "Practically all prices are determined on the fly"

This is a silly comparison. Stars don’t model their fusion output. Particles interact on the fly. There is also no model relating entropy to overnight collateralised borrowing rates.

> calculating physically intrinsic value for a sufficient number of commodities

Interbank funds aren’t a finite commodity.

[LukeB42]

>Stars don’t model their fusion output.

The sum total positive energy contained in the universe can be calculated and predicted.

>Interbank funds aren’t a finite commodity.

This statement is obviously false and can run into brick walls in practice.

The comparison isn't silly in the slightest. Currencies must be coupled to a finite resource to function; Lest agent A buy all of agent B's gold using practically nothing but chutzpah.

That you think the comparison is "silly" shows limited/magical thinking on the subject.

[JumpCrisscross]

> statement is obviously false

No, it isn’t, though misunderstanding it isn’t even fundamental to the flaw in your thinking. A couple of banks can create and destroy an infinite amount of money among them with no real effect. JPMorgan credits UBS a trillion trillion trillion dollars at the latter’s JPMorgan account at the same time UBS credits JPMorgan at its UBS account, and then they both undo it a moment later. No real effect. Hell, JPMorgan could create the money with no counterbalance so they could look at it how pretty it is for an indefinite amount of time. Same deal. Regulators won’t be happy, but that’s because of the potential effects of UBS trying to buy the Fed’s balance sheet.

It’s when the interbank market interacts with broader markets that anything real happens.

[LukeB42]

Again more bankster handwaving.

What need do banks have for that capability where the capability shouldn't clearly be criminalised?

[JumpCrisscross]

> What need do banks have for that capability where the capability shouldn't clearly be criminalised?

Banks don't legally have that capability.

The point wasn't that banks do this. It's that it would have the same-real world effect (again, outside regulatory action and law enforcement) as me writing you a trillion-dollar IOU.

[jevgeni]

What's the physically intrinsic value of a paper clip?

[LukeB42]

Number of joules that can be extracted from the atoms composing the molecules composing the steel wire it's made of.

...How can you not see this?

[kasey_junk]

You screwed up the answer here in this classic Uber-commodity based economy (which no actual economist has ever proposed outside of thought experiments).

The traditional answer when people go down this path is “what ever the producer and consumer agree the price is based on a currency denominated in joules that can be extracted from an atom”.

By doing so you’ve eliminated all forms of value adding capabilities from your economic system. The paper clip is no more valuable than its unprocessed atomic components, which is clearly not how real value is derived (or your currency is completely divorced from value).

[jevgeni]

What's the physically intrinsic value of an energy extractor then?

[LukeB42]

The value of its atoms and the electrons orbiting those atoms (give or take labour costs for transforming those atoms) in joules or watts.

[jevgeni]

What if there's only one energy extractor in the world?