I am very aware of this argument, but it is wrong. Gold's viability and value as a currency comes earlier in the market process. There is a sort of paradox when transitioning to a non-commodity money; Ludwig von Mises thought it impossible. Like you said, one way to overcome the paradox is by force of government, and it's been assumed for quite a while that without the force of government, such a money would never come to be... well... money. The argument for this is compelling, but we know it to be wrong simply by looking at Bitcoin. Bitcoin had absolutely no worth, and as such, was completely arbitrary in exchange, yet someone thought it cool enough to try and eventually it stated to hold its own exchange value.

Lastly, *nothing* has intrinsic value: if you simply mean to say that a good has other use cases besides money, that is fine. But the use cases it has are precisely because we have assigned it such. Gold isn't "naturally" worth anything. It is only worth something because we have found uses for it.

You are right in that Arden is wrong. Obviously there are commodities that can be collected to back a currency. My other comment was just to point out that gold is not a hill worth dying on and it's unfortunate that sound money people get so hung up on it.

Physical currencies generally have more disadvantages to advantages when compared to virtual ones. There really is no reason, economically, for a currency to be backed by a commodity. There are, however, very real problems that are introduced by inflationary policies and the use of fiat currency. The biggest hurdle for virtual currencies to overcome is to get off the ground in the first place and to be assigned a value by society. (Remember, there is no such thing as "intrinsic" value: a thing only has a value if people assign value to it. Commodities like gold have other uses besides currency, which make them easier and more likely to bootstrap as into a state of money, but that does not mean a virtual currency can never come about as money. Bitcoin has proven that notion wrong.)

Maternity leave is all ready factored into the studies. Clearly, his statement is false.

I don't doubt that's the case. But it's not discrimination: it's hedging against risk; namely, the risk of spending resources on training someone and having them bail shortly thereafter. Regulations like mandatory maternity leave only serve to exacerbate the problem.

I have made no such claim that the market is flawless. But if you understand value theory (value is not a price, but is subjective; value ends up indirectly determining price), then you will know that the market is the *only* way to come to a sensible price. It is the only way by which we can calculate how scarce resources should be used amongst their alternative uses, in what quantity, etc. It may seem nonsensical to you, but if for some reason, all of the western world values a steaming pile of shit, shit will become a scarce resource and have a price associated with it. Just because I don't want shit doesn't mean other people don't and that its price should be lower than, say, a pound of rice. It may turn out that the desire for shit was misplaced sometime in the future, it is abandoned, but that doesn't prove anything at all.

Oh, how so? It outlines the same things that have been echo'ed here, that there women make decisions that negatively affect their earning power. That's not to say that those decisions are poor decisions--only an individual can decide if such a sacrifice is worthwhile. As for linking to a book, apologies. I only did a very brief search; it's a political topic and most of the results are political in nature, not scientific.

You are drawing conclusions from something that was not said. It may well be that the author is sexist and meant it in a sexist way, but I see no reason why we should assume it to be a sexist statement.

Sigh, arbitrary arguments over wage rates. The only way to find out what someone should be paid is by letting the market show us. There's no other way to aggregate the necessary information.

That varies depending on what data you look at. The link I provided above accounted for all of 4%. The other thing to remember is that there could be other factors that we just haven't thought of yet--that remaining 4-7% could very well make perfect sense, as has the other 17%. The point is that it's a very small deviation--small enough that any efforts to "correct" it, should it even need correcting, would almost surely hurt everyone involved more than help them. As I stated above (maybe in a different message), the market does not reward discrimination. That doesn't mean that it won't exist, only that a firm places itself at a competitive disadvantage if it discriminates[1].

[1] Actually that's really only true when society detests the discrimination in question. It could certainly be plausible that if a society detests brown-eyed people working in factories (for whatever silly reason), any company who attempts to hire a brown-eyed person to a factory job would be boycotted to the point where hiring that person would be a net loss, even though otherwise his hiring practices may be at a competitive advantage over the competition. Suffice it to say, I don't think society detests women being paid on par with men, given it is an apples to apples comparison, so I don't think this analysis applies.

Ultimately I think he communicated the same thing that you did, but in fewer words. He didn't say "women who act like men are paid more," just that when the behaviors are the same, which would include career choice, child rearing decisions, etc., the pay is the same. There is *nothing* sexist about that statement.

--
I rarely read signatures, but I did read yours.

It's a political talking point. Of course logic and reason have no place in the argument. I have a feminist friend who will make the "79 cents on every dollar" claim frequently; I will point her to research which very convincingly refutes the claim; later, she will say, "but we make 79 cents on every dollar." [ mind blown ]

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba766

In my relationship with my wife, as is the case with many families, I am the one who is tasked with earning the money. Some may take it that we're just playing into a stereotype, and that may be true to an extent, but it works for us and plays to both of our strengths. I admittedly did not plan my career around the possibility of myself getting pregnant and having to take a year off of work for each of my three young children, but to do so would be silly, since I am, after all, a man. In my family's situation, my earning more money (time spent working held constant) is synonymous with caring for my children. Like it or not, most women--even today--do plan their lives, at least to a certain extent, around being a mother. This affects the sorts of careers they go into and how quickly they move up the ladder. But is it wrong? No, I don't think so. They receive non-monetary compensation for their decisions. I do not get to experience my children all day long, which I consider a downside to my working; my wife does. Can't have your cake and eat it too. :)

Yeah I'm sure there are biases, but the reality is the market doesn't reward biases, as it puts an employer at a competitive disadvantage. That's not to say that an employer won't act on his or her biases--just that they're not rewarded. I would expect there to be more un-acted-upon biases than acted-upon biases, but that's purely speculative. :)