[wonderpup]

Quote

Theres nowt wrong with speculation and gambling - if it's your own money you are using.

Good point- I just use the term 'speculators' these days as a term of abuse, but it does have a legitimate role to play if those getting the rewards are the one's running the risks.

[R K]

Panda, on 24 October 2011 - 11:20 PM, said:

Went to church today, and no, I am agnostic, I went just to see what "believers" get......I feel as though I am not right nor wrong, but willing not to "dismiss"..........

Anyway, got talking to a retired gent, clever guy, post 70, treats the church as a retreat, socialising, but is well read, well I get that feeling...........................He went on, one of his statements, any thoughts?

"Money/Cash reward is a reflection of human effort, and any artefact/asset value is a reflection of the amount of human effort willing to gain that artefact/asset, through the cash reward. Where the cash reward is not great enough to gain the artefact/asset, then the same artefact/asset will not hold its value, because at the end of the day the debtor must pay the creditor, and where demand falls, then the credit created will destruct, as the debt required to accumulate the artefact/asset will fall, as the effort is seen as too much with little gain..........................

http://en.wikipedia....theory_of_value

?

[Injin]

Red Knight, on 25 October 2011 - 12:58 AM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....theory_of_value

?

Best wrong idea anyone ever had?

it's so plausible until you think about it! But no. Value is in the trading, not the effort.

[South Lorne]

A.steve, on 25 October 2011 - 12:01 AM, said:

... I think the idea that money could correlate with effort stands in stark opposition to Capitalism...

..this does not stand up to the issue of the 'Protestant work ethic' ..and when migrated across the Atlantic to the new world of North America...the very foundation of the United States and it's Capitalism was built on the back of the Puritan and Presbyterian spirit...

This post has been edited by South Lorne: 25 October 2011 - 01:20 AM

[bomberbrown]

About 5 years ago, I started going to church on a Sunday. I did this for about a year and I only stopped going when the some of the prayers started taking pro political party leanings (Lib Dem). That then put me off.

[KingBingo]

Panda, on 24 October 2011 - 11:20 PM, said:

"Money/Cash reward is a reflection of human effort, and any artefact/asset value is a reflection of the amount of human effort willing to gain that artefact/asset, through the cash reward. Where the cash reward is not great enough to gain the artefact/asset, then the same artefact/asset will not hold its value, because at the end of the day the debtor must pay the creditor, and where demand falls, then the credit created will destruct, as the debt required to accumulate the artefact/asset will fall, as the effort is seen as too much with little gain..........................

This is the position of classical economics. It was overturned by Carl Menger in the late 1870's, the first of the Austrian economists. He proved that value does not exist outside the human mind: http://mises.org/daily/1349


Your friend has his finger on the pulse of developments in economic theory I see.

[Quiet Guy]

scepticus, on 25 October 2011 - 12:45 AM, said:

defaults don't destroy any money. They destroy the assets of the lender but not his liabilities.

liabilities (of the banking system and the government) are money.

therein of course lies the problem we face.

Woops. Yes, agreed a default will only impact the lender's assets (loan book.) Your correction makes me wonder just when is money destroyed? Apart from extreme cases like burning cash or a currency failure, I can't see an obvious answer.

Any ideas anyone?

[Injin]

Quiet Guy, on 25 October 2011 - 08:14 AM, said:

Woops. Yes, agreed a default will only impact the lender's assets (loan book.) Your correction makes me wonder just when is money destroyed? Apart from extreme cases like burning cash or a currency failure, I can't see an obvious answer.

Any ideas anyone?

Depends on the type of money.

Fiat money is entirely at the whim of the state that issues it. They can write it off any time they like as long as they retain the power to murder anyone who disagrees with impunity.

A free market money can change at any time at all if the majority of people in the market stop desiring the item that is money. (In a free market money is the most commonly desired item out of all the things traded - i.e. ciggies, beer, gold etc)

[Rain'ard]

Why are so may people/individuals on this thread keep writing/ posting with too many forward slashes/ stroke duel meanings.?

[hedgefunded]

wonderpup, on 25 October 2011 - 12:03 AM, said:

We now have an entire class of people who view working as a mugs game-

...and they'd be right.

If you're an uneducated couple, late teens and no hope, you'd be mad not to knock out a kid every three years and let everyone else pay. Obviously the girl doesn't name the father(s) but they'll do alright.

[Injin]

hedgefunded, on 25 October 2011 - 08:29 AM, said:

...and they'd be right.

If you're an uneducated couple, late teens and no hope, you'd be mad not to knock out a kid every three years and let everyone else pay. Obviously the girl doesn't name the father(s) but they'll do alright.

Erm he's talking about bankers, politicians and their assorted hangers on I believe.

It's only worth doing the behaviours you outline because the rents and taxes that are ultimately funnelled to bankers and statists are so high.

[Fishbone Glover]

Injin, on 25 October 2011 - 08:32 AM, said:

Erm he's talking about bankers, politicians and their assorted hangers on I believe.

It's only worth doing the behaviours you outline because the rents and taxes that are ultimately funnelled to bankers and statists are so high.

Actually they're both right. The problem that we're facing is parasites and hanger's on at both ends of the spectrum - the workshy chavs and the bankers politicians etc. If it wasn't for both these groups, the average person could be taking things a little bit easier.

[easy2012]

scepticus, on 25 October 2011 - 12:45 AM, said:

defaults don't destroy any money. They destroy the assets of the lender but not his liabilities.

liabilities (of the banking system and the government) are money.

therein of course lies the problem we face.

Until the bank defaults on the bank credits that it created and zeros all the accounts..

[scepticus]

A.steve, on 25 October 2011 - 12:55 AM, said:

There's quite a bit of that I disagree with.

First: data is not, has never been, and can never be valuable..

data is information. stuff that is not information is noise.

Quote

. Information can be valuable, but only if it is relevant.

relevance is in the eye of the beholder. Take the money supply and public debt statistics. Are they relevant? To what? Tea party nutters ascribe a very different relevance to those numbers than Paul Krugman does. Since there is no objective measure of relevance all data must be created equal.

Quote

High bandwidth connectivity enhances our ability to exchange information... but this is a double-edged sword, in more ways than one. One problem is that information is destroyed once successfully conveyed - rather like transferring charge eliminates potential difference with electricity. Another problem is that relevant information is a weapon to establish or undermine a right... and technology doesn't care which. Yet another problem is that ever higher bandwidth links promote data transmissions that are ever less information rich.. and, eventually (maybe this has already happened) increased bandwidth simply results in less value, on average, in each communication.

Information is destroyed? I don't think so. A TV broadcast signal does not destroy the recording from which is was originated. In physics, information appears to be conserved - although there are ongoing arguments about whether information is destroyed by black holes and what happens at the cosmic horizon.

I agree with the diminishing return to communication though. To communicate means simply that two entities have more in common after a communication than before, and thus less need to communicate further in future, Higher speed comms simply diminish the total divergence between entities that might accumulate - the divergence could never be eliminated except with infinitely fast communication - a bit like you can't if you have mass actually attain the speed of light but can spend infinitely large amounts of effort trying. And there are advantages to the traveller in getting close to the speed of light - namely taking advantage of time dilation. I don't see why a similar principle can't hold for communication between entities.

[R K]

Injin, on 25 October 2011 - 01:04 AM, said:

Best wrong idea anyone ever had?

it's so plausible until you think about it! But no. Value is in the trading, not the effort.

It covers that too. Hence why I posted it and left you to decide.