that actually doesn't mean that a system where people trade things for value is lesser or something

I'm confused. Who said it was lesser?

In every transaction we disagree about value

I do disagree a bit here here. If I'm buying something for $5, it means I want the thing more than I want the $5. But I may think the thing's only worth $2.50, and I'm being fucked over. Or that it's worth $10, and I'm getting away with highway robbery.

There are two values there--one that makes the transaction possible (otherwise I'm not giving up the goods or the cash), and something we pretend is more objective.

I think the word value can be used meaningfully in both scenarios, but can get confusing when the scenarios are not clearly distinguished, so that's why I'm rambling.

I'm saying that economies only exist when large portions of us can agree that the same thing has value, and that it has roughly the same value from day to day.

I disagree that this makes them ephemeral. The modern global economy seems precarious because we've evolved an economy where you can literally trade nothing for nothing and end up making millions (which you can then use to buy real, tangible things).

But I don't know of any human society that does not exist on some level because people agree to trade things for other things -- economies develop because it is better to specialize and trade than to be self-sufficient.

In every transaction we disagree about value-- I value that People Magazine more than $2, you value that $2 more than your People Magazine.

It's not the minor disagreements about relative values involved in individual transactions that's threatening to any given economy, though. It's when we all lose faith in the value of one particular unit of trade that catastrophies happen. And it's intriguing because in many cases, nothing about the unit in question changed between the day when everything was fine and the next day when the economy was in ruins. What changed was people's confidence.

The problem is (IMO) some economists are much more confident that they should be given the degree of uncertainty in both their theories and data, and that in general a lot of economic theories are acted upon as though they are certain.

I think it's more of a case of people in power deciding what they want to do and then finding economists that agree with the policy to give it credibility.

And it's intriguing because in many cases, nothing about the unit in question changed between the day when everything was fine and the next day when the economy was in ruins. What changed was people's confidence.

An economy in ruins still exists, though -- the disappearance of a market (for tulips, comic books, or Enron stock) does not imply the disappearance of the larger system of supply/demand/exchange in which that market existed.

I disagree that this makes them ephemeral.

Fair point. Economies are real, and changes in them have very real effects. I think I would characterize them as ephemeral because it is possible for economies to not just collapse, but disappear entirely and need to be replaced by something else. Sometimes that's because of political calamity like war, or some natural disaster, but sometimes it's only because we stopped believing.

Something comes along to replace the economy in question, because the reality of our need to trade doesn't change, but we can disbelieve our ability to trade effectively out of existence for a time.

I think what Sean is trying to say is that economics is much more emo than government or law, and can trash its hotel room way faster. (Or, presumably, make a hotel room out of nothing way faster, although I think still slower than it can trash one.)

All abstractions can be metaphorized into rock stars, didn't you know that??

but sometimes it's only because we stopped believing.

Don't make me pull out Journey here, people!!

Trade you that Journey album for a bushel of wheat.

I think I like Nutty's description best.

And Jesse near killed me.