I'm drawing a distinction between agreed-upon value, which is 'imaginary' the way that laws are 'imaginary'*, and fictitious value, which is even less real than that -- it's invented unilaterally, and its origins are then hidden to make it appear agreed-upon. So I suppose it's a bit like that favorable house rule you made up for your poker game and then claimed you saw on TV's Greatest Stars Embarrass Themselves Playing Poker. Except somehow worth a trillion dollars.
(* they're plenty imaginary, but try breaking a few of the wrong ones...)
But currency is the same way. I have no idea why a dollar is worth what it is. And I'm not going to have much luck convincing people that it is worth more than everyone says it is.
Yes, that the agreement on value was founded on false pretenses (and therefore fell apart when reality asserted itself) is indeed a crucial distinction there.
From:
no subject
What she's talking about does seem to be a bad thing though.
From:
no subject
(* they're plenty imaginary, but try breaking a few of the wrong ones...)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject