@pcooper said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
(And in case it's not clear, Matt Levine is as aghast that these things have this sort of "worth" as anybody else here.
It's funny how some people can at once fiercely reject the labor theory of value, allegedly subscribe instead to the Austrian view that the price of a thing is a direct expression of individual preferences, hence a thing is "worth" whatever people are willing to pay for it, and pretend to know the exact opposite: that certain things are worth something completely different than the price at which they were exchanged in the market.
I don't know whether that true of Levine, I've just noticed it often as was reminded of it.