But I wonder where we are on that same curve for individuals: is it harder or easier for anybody to “cut through the chaff” of the masses?

But I wonder where we are on that same curve for individuals: is it harder or easier for anybody to “cut through the chaff” of the masses?

“Fungibility is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution.

… Fungibility has nothing to do with the ability to exchange one commodity for another different commodity. It refers only to the ease of exchanging one unit of a commodity with another unit of the same commodity.”

“Fungibility is different from liquidity. A good is liquid and tradable if it can be easily exchanged for money or another different good. A good is fungible if one unit of the good is substantially equivalent to another unit of the same good of the same quality at the same time and place.”

This actually loops back to our other conversation: http://www.ethanbauley.com/post/72627292/this-e...

There are common threads throughout social groups in how social capital is created, and etiquette is one of the “factors of production”; but trading that social capital between groups gets kinda tough, for reasons I've pointed out previously.

Noting that you're thinking about a non-obvious future state of transparent “social capital accounting system”, even if we do eventually see a system, I believe there are some very good reasons, based on game theory, that people will want to make some “social capital transactions” non-transparent and non-interlinked, perhaps for the same reasons we have informal economies and black markets.

But that's really a subject for a future post…

“Fungibility is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution.

… Fungibility has nothing to do with the ability to exchange one commodity for another different commodity. It refers only to the ease of exchanging one unit of a commodity with another unit of the same commodity.”

“Fungibility is different from liquidity. A good is liquid and tradable if it can be easily exchanged for money or another different good. A good is fungible if one unit of the good is substantially equivalent to another unit of the same good of the same quality at the same time and place.”

This actually loops back to our other conversation: http://www.ethanbauley.com/post/72627292/this-e...

There are common threads throughout social groups in how social capital is created, and etiquette is one of the “factors of production”; but trading that social capital between groups gets kinda tough, for reasons I've pointed out previously.

Noting that you're thinking about a non-obvious future state of transparent “social capital accounting system”, even if we do eventually see a system, I believe there are some very good reasons, based on game theory, that people will want to make some “social capital transactions” non-transparent and non-interlinked, perhaps for the same reasons we have informal economies and black markets.

But that's really a subject for a future post…

A lot of that has to do with Intent.

This loops into the social capital conversation somehow.

Also: Taylor, can you expand on what you meant when you said “Etiquette is not fungible”? I know what fungible means but it's twisting my brain in this context!

A lot of that has to do with Intent.

This loops into the social capital conversation somehow.

Also: Taylor, can you expand on what you meant when you said “Etiquette is not fungible”? I know what fungible means but it's twisting my brain in this context!

“In 1967, I wrote a paper for the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science called “The Art of Measuring the Arts.” My purpose was to show exactly how we can go about measuring this seemingly unmeasurable field and its impact on the economy. For example, you can ask, looking at a country’s output of the arts, to what degree is it diverse? To what degree does it meet high technical standards? How do critics and scholars evaluate it? These are categories that can be defined and measured.”

In other words, you can't measure the value of art directly, but it does have measurable correlates.