>>14800084Money going back and forth without attachment to material production. What's commonly known as goods?
So what you're saying is that a construction worker is valuable because he touches wood which has been produced by loggers.
A doctor is not worthwhile because he heals the useless meat that touches wood, not the wood. Same with barbers. What about researchers who help produce a better motor for a chainsaw?
You're not holistic enough all these people provide value, surplus. They vary in their value arguably.
If you don't draw a line somewhat like that then what the hell are we even talking about? Then there's nothing without attachment. Unless we're talking about things like NFTs. It's harder to argue the connection when it's literally just manufacturing anti-features, non-fungability. But at least they're an incredibly poor financial instrument.
My view is that everyone provides value. Some provide a lot like researchers that will have an effect long beyond their deaths (hopefully a big effect, hopefully a positive effect). Others like a barista provides a society that's pleasant to be in. I don't particularly value baristas but some do. Those people enjoy a higher quality of life which coincides strongly with intellectual output. Are we a more efficient society if we ensured there were nobody working to serve coffee and we just made it caffeine soup? Possibly. But our knowledge is lacking. Baristas hold value through this uncertainty. If we start restricting these goods something that may be very useful would also be banned by the structure that banned baristas.
And there's an argument to keep them employed so they don't cause other societal problems. Even despite an effective tax increase. We subsidize maid services here in Sweden. And both sides if the political space approves of this now (excluding the far left, obviously, being idealists) because it has had clear positive effects. Even if it's just cleaning up for lazy people like myself.
