Erik Orrje
@erik-orrje·Member since September 2025·Ideas
Badges
Activity
#4216·Benjamin DaviesOP, 8 days agoIf the business is cash-flowing it doesn’t matter if other people in the market don’t bid it up. The business can buy back shares or distribute dividends to enrich shareholders.
Obviously this assumes you’ve invested in a business with competent management.
Sure, but those cash flows are still downstream of what consumers subjectively value though?
So the estimation of "intrinsic value" is ultimately a guess of what people will subjectively value in the future?
#4217·Dennis Hackethal, 8 days agoCorrect me if I’m wrong, but potatoes seem to be a good source of fiber. Very filling.
Carbonated water and diet sodas also feel filling, and they don’t even have calories. Diet sodas can help people lose weight. I like to drink Diet Coke when I’m on a cut. The caffeine gives me energy.
Yeah potatoes are a decent source of fibre, though the satiation is mostly through their high water content :)
The easiest lever to pull when trying to lose weight is satiation. That can be done artificially through GLP1-agonists, but in the case of nutrition, that's best accomplished by an increased protein and fibre intake.
#4158·Benjamin DaviesOP revised 9 days agoI was careful to say "It is important to buy assets for significantly less than you think they are worth". Value is certainly subjective (in the sense that things are valued differently by different people).
As for methods of valuation, there are many out there, each with their pros and cons. Discounted cashflow (DCF) valuations are my preferred method as they directly address the purpose of investing: giving up value today in exchange for more value in the future. The key problem with this is that the future is inherently unpredictable, so building a DCF involves educated guesswork about the future and is inevitably imprecise (varying massively by the nature of the asset... the USD return from a US govt bond is more predictable than the USD return of a tech stock).
The unavoidable flaws in valuation methods are why we should try to buy assets at steep discounts to our valuations of them. The deeper the discount, the bigger our mistake can be without it hurting us.
I was careful to say "It is important to buy assets for significantly less than you think they are worth". Value is certainly subjective (in the sense that things are valued differently by different people).
It can't only be about what I think an asset is worth though right?🤔 Isn't the important thing to buy assets that people will value higher in the future? And in the process try to explain what people will subjectively value?
#3959·Benjamin DaviesOP, 20 days agoYou are fallible and the future is unpredictable. It is important to buy assets for significantly less than you think they are worth. The cheaper you buy something, the more margin you have for things to go worse than anticipated. This is called a 'Margin of Safety'. Paying a higher price for something inherently makes the investment more fragile and less profitable.
A crappy business can be a good investment if you get it cheap enough, and a wonderful business can be a terrible investment if you pay too much. (The dream is getting a wonderful business for cheap.)
It is important to buy assets for significantly less than you think they are worth. The cheaper you buy something, the more margin you have for things to go worse than anticipated.
According to Austrian economics, all value is subjective. How can we then know what an asset is intrinsically worth?
#3675·Knut Sondre Sæbø revised about 1 month agoIf we view addiction as entrenchment of ideas (in the broad sense), why can't you have conflict between implicit and explicit preferences, which are both short-term preferences? Something in your body is addicted to a substance, but you could simultaneously, consciously, not want to take the substance because you don't like how it feels.
Hmm could you give examples of such addictions between implicit and explicit short-term preferences?
#3553·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 2 months agoIsn't every theory infinitely underspecified ?
No. For example, the theory of addition is sufficiently specified: we have enough info to implement an algorithm of addition on a computer, then run it, test it, correct errors with it, and so on.
Do you have examples of such algorithms?
#3558·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoInteresting. Do you think the conflict is always between short vs long-term preferences, or could there be addictive conflicts between two short-term preferences or even two long-term preferences?
Always, because of the underlying uncertainty about the future. Please criticise!
#3040·Dennis HackethalOP revised 3 months agoMy Conjecture
Conjecture: addiction is the result of the entrenchment of a conflict between two or more preferences in a mind.
Picture a smoker who wants to give up smoking but also really enjoys smoking. Those preferences conflict.
If the conflict is entrenched, then both preferences get to live on indefinitely. The entrenchment will not let the smoker give up smoking. He will become a chain smoker.
Solutions for the conflict may need to be found creatively, case by case. It depends on the nature of the particular entrenchment and the preferences involved. A more overarching answer for how to cure addiction might involve Randian ideas around introspection and getting one’s reason and emotions in the proper order.
Elaboration:
The conflict in addiction is between short-term and long-term solutions.
The preference for short-term in addiction is caused by uncertainty/an inability to make predictions based on explanations.
This uncertainty can be real (e.g. increased heroin addiction during the Vietnam War) or learned from insecurity during one's early years.
#3521·Dennis HackethalOP, about 2 months agoSome minds with lots of coercive memes are more like dictatorships.
Doesn’t a dictatorship mean there’s only a single actor at the top? If there’s lots of coercive memes, that sounds like multiple actors.
Yes, here's a new version:
Some minds with one coercive memeplex are more like dictatorships.
#3522·Dennis HackethalOP, about 2 months ago[P]eople with set preferences for less self are more like communist societies. That's a kind of coerced decentralisation.
Aren’t communist societies totalitarian and highly centralized?
In practice, yeah, but the end goal is decentralised ownership and control. According to the Britannica dictionary:
"Like most writers of the 19th century, Marx tended to use the terms communism and socialism interchangeably. In his Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875), however, Marx identified two phases of communism that would follow the predicted overthrow of capitalism: the first would be a transitional system in which the working class would control the government and economy yet still find it necessary to pay people according to how long, hard, or well they worked, and the second would be fully realized communism—a society without class divisions or government, in which the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Marx’s followers, especially the Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilich Lenin, took up this distinction.""
#3514·Dennis HackethalOP, about 2 months agoIf … the mind is a decentralized system, does the mind have something like a price system for its different parts to communicate?
But the mind isn’t a decentralized system. It has a central ‘I’ sitting at the top. So it’s more like a company with a CEO than a fully decentralized system.
Just as nations can have different forms of governance, minds can too.
For example: Most probably have that CEO-sense of self.
Some minds with lots of coercive memes are more like dictatorships.
People with "smaller egos" (less anti-rational memes) are more like libertarian societies.
But people with set preferences for less self are more like communist societies. That's a kind of coerced decentralisation.
Split personalities would be akin to a highly polarised society that switches governance back and forth.
#3503·Dennis HackethalOP, about 2 months agoI don’t think so, no.
The BoI chapter 1 glossary defines empiricism as “The misconception that we ‘derive’ all our knowledge from sensory experience.” I’m not saying empirical fields derive knowledge from sensory experience.
There’s a difference between ‘empiricism’ and ‘empirical’.
Cool, would you say then that it is only in empirical fields we can deduce facts/truth?
If so: In what way is this different from Wittgenstein saying we can't reach any truths in philosophy (which makes it meaningless)?
#3418·Dennis HackethalOP, about 2 months agoI think of it in terms of error correction: all fields where progress is possible allow us to identify and correct errors.
Empirical fields use facts. In empirical fields, error identification involves finding a discrepancy between theories and observation.
I’d consider aesthetics and economics at least partly empirical since you can make testable predictions. You can test an economic policy, for example, and see whether its predictions match (correspond to) outcomes. In music, things can sound unpleasant.
I see, interesting. If only empirical fields can correspond to facts/truth, isn't that a form of empiricism?
#3405·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months agoSorry for the late reply. I don’t know. I don’t think the aim of math is correspondence to physical facts like in science. But maybe it’s correspondence to mathematical facts.
No worries :-). Yeah, this is the part that confuses me about correspondence:
Which fields (apart from science) have "facts", and which consist merely of useful/adapted knowledge?
For instance, are there musical facts, economic facts, aesthetic facts, etc?
#2579·Benjamin Davies revised 4 months agoIt is one thing to explain why a particular god spread more than others in the past, but it is another thing to claim that your specific god of choice will spread more than others in the future.
Your claim is that Zcash is the next money, which is analogous to claiming your niche god of choice is under-appreciated and will be the next big one.
Yes. But again, because it solves certain problems with existing money. There could similarly be good and bad explanations why certain religions would spread in the future.
#2574·Benjamin Davies, 4 months agoMoney needs to be a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value.
Features that support a price floor create the conditions where one can expect that their wealth won’t completely evaporate for one reason or another. Something that has no features supporting a price floor is not good money.
If gold no longer has features supporting a price floor at some point in the future (as you claim might happen), then gold would also not be good money in that future.
Zcash has nothing going for it that makes it a store of value. To the degree that it is ‘worth’ anything in the future, it is because of the dynamics I refer to in #2497.
I agree that it would be optimal if Zcash and Bitcoin had such price floors. But couldn't it still be the best alternative in certain jurisdictions, e.g. where it's impossible/impractical to own gold, and the local currency gets inflated away?
#2417·Dennis HackethalOP, 4 months agoAre you asking if there can be correspondence between two abstractions? Or between a physical object and an abstraction?
Between two abstractions (ambiguous statements made by us, and perfectly precise propositions).
#2496·Benjamin Davies, 4 months agoThe part that is easy to vary is that an arbitrary amount of different cryptos can be made with the same features.
The features themselves can be as specific as you like but the overall argument is still extremely easy to vary, because it is an argument for a specific cryptocurrency.
It is the same as arguing for a specific god because the god you like has specific features. The god itself is still easy to vary.
It is the same as arguing for a specific god because the god you like has specific features. The god itself is still easy to vary.
I could still see someone with knowledge of psychology and theology provide a good explanation as to why certain gods and religions have spread in favour of others. All ideas are solutions to some problem.
#2496·Benjamin Davies, 4 months agoThe part that is easy to vary is that an arbitrary amount of different cryptos can be made with the same features.
The features themselves can be as specific as you like but the overall argument is still extremely easy to vary, because it is an argument for a specific cryptocurrency.
It is the same as arguing for a specific god because the god you like has specific features. The god itself is still easy to vary.
The part that is easy to vary is that an arbitrary amount of different cryptos can be made with the same features.
There's never an arbitrary amount of solutions to a specific problem. In this case, the problems are the centralisation and the lack of privacy of our current money. They may not be problems for you specifically (e.g. if you live in a high-trust jurisdiction), but I'd like to hear arguments as to why nobody in the world would consider them problems.
#2497·Benjamin Davies, 4 months agoDurability, Portability, Divisibility, Fungibility, and Stability
These are all secondary values.
The durability of something is irrelevant if the thing itself is useless.
The portability of something is irrelevant if the thing itself is useless.
The divisibility of something is irrelevant if the thing itself is useless.
Etcetera, etcetera.The only demand for something like this comes from either a mistaken understanding of what ‘value’ is/means (e.g. believing that the ‘durability’ of something otherwise useless makes it valuable), or from the Keynesian Beauty Contest linked above.
This dynamic makes cryptos wonderful as instruments of speculation, but they will never be money unless they are backed by some independently useful commodity (which IIRC some actually are), or are made legal tender by some government (which defeats the point).
Value comes from solving a problem.
Money solves (among other things) the problem of barter by being a medium of exchange. Different media solve this problem better than others. That determines its value.
I still don't see why there has to be a price floor set by the commodity's utility (for other things than being money)? Also, the value could still go to zero if that utility was no longer needed: Gold isn't guaranteed to be valued in industry or jewellry in the future.
#2509·Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoNew arguments may not belong at the bottom of the criticism chain. Depending on context, it may need to be either a new sibling at the top of the chain or a completely new standalone idea.
I didn’t check this exchange in detail to say for sure. But I recommend checking, so I’m marking this as a criticism. If you think the new argument can remain as is, leave a counter-criticism to neutralize my criticism.
#2427·Benjamin Davies revised 4 months agoWhy not some other cryptocurrency that also has those features?
For example, why not an existing or future fork of Zcash?“[Insert favoured cryptocurrency] will become the next money” is an extremely easy to vary statement.
Is "it contains bitcoin's solutions to fiat, and also solves bitcoin's lack of privacy" easy to vary? Could be made harder to vary by explaining the technicals of zero-knowledge proofs as well (though I'm not konwledgeable enough to do that here).
#2425·Benjamin Davies, 4 months agoUtility is not a necessary aspect of money.
Money without other use cases only holds value to the degree it can continuously win a Keynesian Beauty Contest in the market.
In other words, it has no underlying value.
Thanks for the criticism. New argument: Utility (besides usefulness as money) is not strictly necessary, although it may be nice to have. The value of a currency is set by supply and demand.
Supply: A limited supply (scarcity) may increase the value.
Demand: Demand is set determined by how well people percieve the currency's features as a store of value, medium of exchange and unit of account. Important factors include: Durability, Portability, Divisibility, Fungibility, and Stability. Gold has had most of these features (importantly scarcity, only 2% inflation from mining). However, it severely lacks in portability due to being a metal, compared to hard digital assets.
So the value of a currency is mostly determined by its perceived usefulness as money, not its utility for other things.
Thanks. Do you think there's correspondence for abstractions as well (such as mathematics, as DD seems to suggest)? As I understood, you only think we need it to explain progress in science.
Thanks. Do you think the aim in abstract fields (such as mathematics) is correspondence as well? (As Deutsch seems to argue with the idea of perfect propositions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ-opI-jghs).