Quote from HomoSalmon:
My concern is more about real value of money and goods than on money forms. I cannot find a reason to stop analysis to how liquid money is, as seems to me M* try to do. Seems to me there so many variables involved and that many of them are simply neglected by economic theory (as I know it, so near at layman level).
I never found a really convincing modelization of an economic system, even at very macro level. I try to understand it using systems engineering methods, but without good results. Never found a good analogy. Maybe I'm not using right sources, but what they are?
This is THE reason, IMO, because we all continue to discuss about different aspects of our problem without arriving to a shared conclusion.
Simplifing variables means anyone can find a reasonable case where things goes in a way, and someone else on same premise arrive to another conclusion. Because a neglected variable with two different values is used in the two cases, or (more often) someone is assuming a variable that WAS nearly costant in near past HAVE to remain costant in the future, just because history teach in that way, but without any real proof.
Seems to me we're in deep water without not only a map but even without a compass.
