In short, any prior money (e.g., gold, USD, and Bitcoin) must necessarily trace its origin back to the original money, which must’ve had direct use-value. And because all subsequent money derived part of its value from that historical chain starting with the original money, even if the new money does not exhibit the property of direct use-value (e.g., Bitcoin), and even with the seemingly naivety of assuming some “objective use-value” (e.g., gold) which contradicts the subjective value axiom, the regression theorem still stands because the original money must’ve had direct, subjective, use-value.
Relate with Eric Voskuil’s Collectible Tautology and Regression FallacyTODO
“To determine the price of a good, we analyze the market-demand schedule for the good; this in turn depends on the individual demand schedules; these in their turn are determined by the individuals’ value rankings of units of the good and units of money as given by the various alternative uses of money; yet the latter alternatives depend in turn on given prices of the other goods. But how, then, can value scales and utilities be used to explain the formation of money prices, when these value scales and utilities themselves depend upon the existence of money prices?”
Next:
Related:
- On regression and reflexivitydevelop
- 3-1a4b7 The monetary account will increasingly explain the world—especially as it pertains to the human actions—though never exhaustively
- 13-1a3a2e2a Money and differences in the economy are reflexive
- 13-8a2a Money allows you to deal with change per se, since there is no substantive difference between changes in values scales of others and that of himself in the future