Dear Nostr,
I ask this question not as a judge of people who embrace the term "value for value" exchange—no chosen turns of phrase will ever perfectly represent reality. I ask because I often observe how the shorthand we use in language, even if created to express shared ideas more concisely, can come also, in time, to represent moral posturing. Also, the question is not intended as a denigration of the idea of profiting.

My experience in many domains is that people and groups are rarely, if ever, trying to execute value for value (or win-win) exchanges. If you're trying to "profit", you're explicitly trying to gain more in energy and resources than you give away in energy and resources, even if this difference is come by indirectly (i.e. costs experienced by "someones" or "somethings" unknown to you in the entire chain of resources.)

This idea of "profit" seems similar to how wild animals and organisms use some kind of advantage they have over other animals and organisms, which, in turn, leads to their ongoing survival in the wild.

If the above are accurate, are terms like "value-for-value" and "win-win" closer to virtue signaling than accurate descriptions for what is taking place? Would a terms like "direct exchange" or "straight trade" be more honest and correct?

All thoughtful responses are appreciated, regardless of length.

Sincerely,
Alison

#bitcoin #nostr #asknostr #grownostr #plebchain #v4v #btc #bitcoiners #psychology #nosterplebs #finance