Premise: A thing must be valued for one or more non-exchange purposes by one or more people before it can be used for indirect exchange. (regression theorem) Given: A specific thing is used for indirect exchange in a market of 3 or more people. Conclusion: The specific thing must have been valued …

I think filc’s contention lies in things that he is unable to trace back to things with non-exchange value. BitCoin is an example of something that is used in indirect exchange yet he is unable to trace back to something of non-exchange value. Because of the argument in the OP, either the premise …

No such animal. I see that there is another thread out there tossing around bitcoins and the regression theorem. Here is an article spelling it out, called, appropriately, Bitcoin does NOT violate Mises’ Regression Theorem The key part is this: …The very first businesses in the Bitcoin economy…

Bumping an old thread here, because I now know there are some mistakes. The OP wrote that 3 or more people using something as money makes Mises’ Regression Theorem apply to it. Which is not the case. Mises is talking about “generally accepted” stuff. 3 friends or brothers can use meaningless toy …

“People valued X for non-exchange purposes” and “X was generally accepted as a medium of exchange” are moving targets. Can we at least decide on a lower bound on the percentage of the population signified by the words “people” and “generally accepted”? “People valued …” = more than 10% of the popul…

@AJ I think the purpose of using words instead of specific numbers is because it is impossible to know precisely when something has become generally accepted. Cigarettes might be generally accepted in prison, but they certainly aren’t in the general population. Why does it matter for a precise numb…

Very good point AJ. Unfortunately, it’s not me who originated the vagueness, it’s in Mises and Rothbard. I imagine the reason for the vagueness is that what number would not be arbitrary? My conception of generally accepted is “you can get anything you want” with X. Food, clothing, cars, everythin…

Unfortunately, even “you can get anything you want with X” is still a bit arbitrary. By that definition, most currencies of the world don’t qualify, except the big name first world ones. Even those have things that you can’t buy with them (e.g., you may not be able to buy a particular food from a st…

Micah, I am talking about dollars in the USA, small country money in the small country, etc. You certainly can get anything you want, just go to the stores. What are you unable to buy in the USA with dollars, or with Luxemburg money in Luxemburg?

So if I am in a small amish village (entirely self contained) and I can get anything I want within the comumnity using twigs, does that mean twigs are considered money?

Mises's Regression Theorem and a Logical Proof

Economics Economics Questions

Micah71381 May 3, 2012, 11:27pm 23

Does the “community” have to be contained geographically? Or would a virtual (but self contained) community count?

Topic		Replies	Views
Does Mises's Regression Theorem Require a Minimum Population Size? Economics Questions	42	10724	June 28, 2012
Economic calculation under barter? General	9	3120	April 8, 2011
Does the Ithaca Hour Disprove the Regression Theorem? Economics Questions	67	10753	September 15, 2011
Mises's Explanation of the Law of Association Economics Questions	5	1188	August 27, 2009
Misean Regression Theorem ?? Newbies	14	4824	April 6, 2013

Mises's Regression Theorem and a Logical Proof

Related topics

Related on the wiki